70% of P2P Users Would Stop if Warned by ISP

Umpire writes "As the UK considers a three strikes policy to fight copyright infringement, a new survey reports that 70% of UK broadband users would stop using P2P if they received a warning from their ISP. 'Wiggin commissioned the 2008 Digital Entertainment Survey, which found that 70 percent of all people polled said they would stop illegally sharing files if their ISP notified them in some way that it had detected the practice. When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.'"

Comments

I'm in the 30%

[TheDreadedGMan]

that would get disconnected??

Re:I'm in the 30%

[Schmiggy_JK]

Unlikely. I had three warnings over the span of 4 years on Charter. Never once was I threatened with termination.

Re:I'm in the 30%

[rikkards]

I have had two with Rogers. 1 for MS Flight Simulator X (deleted it as it ran like crap on my machine) and 1 for The Frighteners (couldn't get it from Blockbusters or Rogers, now I am with Zip.ca which is a hell of a better selection). Anyways, if they disconnect me, I will take my highspeed, my digital cable, PVR rental, HD channels, and Home phone over to Bell who I am sure would be more than welcoming..

Re:I'm in the 30%

[wsanders]

No, you're in the 30% that would experience improved throughput and soon be trading just as much stuff as the 30%+70% was previously.

Re:I'm in the 30%

[qw3rty]

I've been warned by my ISP 3 times.

Re:I'm in the 30%

[smotts2002]

This Is So Dumb if they didnt want people to start sharing why make CD burners if they didnt want us to use p2p why invent the internet if they didnt want software to be shared make it a decent price and a quality software

Unlikely?

[Conception]

Teenagers don't pay the bill? So, they don't want to get in trouble?

Re:Unlikely?

[TheRealMindChild]

Actually, it is more like the older users (as in, used a computer more in their lifetime), are more aware of what concequences the ISP can really do. After all, they AREN'T the copyright holders. They aren't the police. "And what the hell are you doing looking at my traffic anyway? If you are going to be like that, I'll just go somewhere else!"

Re:Unlikely?

[shmlco]

Nearly every ISP on the planet has terms of service, and almost all of them have provisions regarding the unauthorized distribution of copywritten material, child porn, hate speech, and so on.

From my perspective, enforcing those policies would be entirely within their mandate.

Re:Unlikely?

[mpathetiq]

Just because something is stated in a ToS doesn't mean it's legally stated in a ToS.

Re:Unlikely?

[Firehed]

Sure it does. Their terms say you can't do something. If you go ahead and do it anyways, they have every right to end your service.

That's about the extent of what they can do given the terms, but given how few options there are for internet connectivity, it's a fairly serious threat.

Re:Unlikely?

[Locklin]

The terms say you can't do illegal things. The terms don't say that they reserve the right to snoop in on your communications.

The terms are there to protect the ISP from lawsuit when the client gets sued by a copyright holder - it's not a mandate to become the police.

Re:Unlikely?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. If they put in the terms "and you agree not to be gay" and then they find you having sex with a member of the same gender and end your service because of it you get sue them for breach of contract. Doesn't matter if you knew it was there or not, it's illegal for them to end your contract for that. That's a kinda extreme example, but any terms that aren't legal don't count.

Re:Unlikely?

[Secret Rabbit]

They may only enforce there policy within the law though. And any civilised nation that I know of prohibits such an invasion of privacy and requires PROOF that such things are going on before action is taken.

Re:Unlikely?

[uncoveror]

The general public have no idea how the Internet works, and the mistaken notion that they are anonymous on it. A warning letter from their ISP would scare the hell out of most people, and make them stop using the computer all together at least for a while for fear that they are being watched.

Re:Unlikely?

[houghi]

Nearly every ISP on the planet has terms of service, and almost all of them have provisions regarding the unauthorized distribution of copywritten material, child porn, hate speech, and so on.

However it is should not be up to the ISP to tel what is copywritten, what is hate speach or what is child porn. The only thing they can do when told about it (please let them not look actively for it) is to tell you that you MIGHT PROBABLY be doing something against the AUP, wich MIGHT if proven correct result in the ending of your contract.

This would indeed stop most people. However those that do not stop, can only be stopped if it goes to court.

In Belgium the court has basicaly said that if there is no money gained by the person distributing, they won't fllow up on it.

That means that the local MAFIAA can only tell the provider that somebody is downloading something. The provider can then tell the enduser and that is about where it stops. The provider is forbidden to give details to the MAFIAA. The MAFIAA can not contact the customer directly and they can not go to court to sue the customer.

So how can they enforce anything when they can not decide of what I am doing is illegal. Childporn is obviously something else. There the legal parties WILL bust your ass. The same with hate speech.

All that they can do is go to court and let THEM decide what will be done. The terms of service is mainly a protection for the provider that says: no matter what happens, it is all your fault and we can end servcie, no matter what.

Re:Unlikely?

[Firehed]

The terms don't say that they reserve the right to snoop in on your communications.

They probably do. I can't claim to have read the terms recently, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that kind of clause in there. In -1pt, I'm sure, but that's beside the point.

Of course, this kind of thing is the fundamental basis for net neutrality laws or lack thereof, and the idea of being a common carrier. Do we just spit out bits and have no responsibility for what those bits form, or do we give ourselves the ability to prioritize bits by analyizing their contents, but suddenly be responsible for what those bits are?

They want to have their cake (throttling) and eat it too (pass the buck for copyright infringement). I don't think at this point the free market alone has the ability to make this work out in the long run, since the semi-free, somewhat-subsidized market has created a handful of monoliths that end up buying each other out in hopes to re-form Ma Bell, and the people that made the market semi-free and somewhat-subsidized aren't doing their part by keeping that monster in check. All sides end up half-assing things, resulting in the customers losing.

I'd almost like to let the ISPs have their cake and throttle away. When they try to pass the buck and get the downloader sued, that downloader should bring back the argument of "well, they were trying to throttle the traffic based on what was in it, so they're responsible here too - and they have a fuckton more money than I do so why don't you sue them instead". It only needs to happen once before we all to back to neutral networks and, with some luck, a relatively sane system.

Re:Unlikely?

[SatanicPuppy]

Yes and no. As long as they don't police your traffic, then they're not responsible for policing your traffic. Once they take that step, they're opening up a whole can of worms, and putting their common carrier status in jeopardy.

Once they start down that road, its only a matter of time before someone sues them for something that came through their network. I mean, it's not so far-fetched to have a class action suit against a provider for allowing crackers to run mass automated remote exploits on their network...If I can recognize them on my end, then they should be able to recognize them on the network. Hell, that's trivial beside trying to determine whether someone is downloading kiddy porn or lol cats.

Re:Unlikely?

[JudgeFurious]

You're right of course and I don't want to imply that I don't agree with you when I say that the consequences of such enforcement, a wide scale would be devastating for the ISP that "went first". Now if all of them did so at once they would be within their rights to do so and they could probably head off the kind of subscriber exodus that a single ISP would face.

  The only problem with that is of course that they rarely work together well. Somebody is always waiting to pick up the monthly subscribers you're going to lose by enforcing the rules. Their own greed is usually enough to prevent them from working together.

Re:Unlikely?

[madcow_bg]

Moreover, disconecting you because you infringed copyrights is illegal, if they do not prove that you really do it (otherwise it must be some kind of libel or defamation, but IANAL). And if they do prove it, that is going to be a bigger problem for you than lack of internet ;).

Re:Unlikely?

[Anonymous Coward]

The terms don't say that they reserve the right to snoop in on your communications.

They don't need to. The BSA* just informs your ISP that they've found one of their IPs in a torrent of a copyrighted work.

* "I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business...but I assure you it's not the boy scouts." --Thornton Melon

Re:Unlikely?

[ushering05401]

Hate speech? I am surprised to see that in a list of things that violate ISP TOS.

Out of curiosity, are you based in Europe? Even given the seemingly downward spiral of American rights or expression, I believe that hate speech is still legal here, and not at all deserving of being lumped with child-porn in a list of no-nos.

I know of several future lawyers who spend a lot of time on the net researching fringe movements and their psychology. A ban on the transmission of the hateful speech of these fringe groups would hugely handicap those who seek to understand the phenomenons of xenophobia and ultra-nationalism in America.

Re:Unlikely?

[Zeinfeld]

Point of fact here: we get about an 85% response rate from users when we tell people that the phishing email they just asked about is dangerous

So thats 15% who go ahead and give their CC number after we have told them to stop.

Re:Unlikely?

[kaens]

Wasn't there a case pretty recently where TOSs were shown to not hold up in court?

Re:Unlikely?

[rizole]

Older users are less likely to fall for fud (and that's all this is until it's enacted in law) and I've found age has added a clear understanding in me that everything has a workaround, shortcut or backdoor; encryption is one example and I wont even mention usenet.

Doh!

Re:Unlikely?

[Kjella]

You're making the flawed assumption that for anything agreed to in a contract, any circumstancial evidence or means of verifying it is implicitly ok. Just because the contract with my landlord says I can't do certain things doesn't mean he can set up video surveilance in the apartment or lock himself in and search it any time he wants to. Some random guy on the street can't get me evicted just by making an accusation. The ISPs don't know, don't want to know, shouldn't know and what you're seeing is nothing other than trying to force the landlord into being the moral police. If you can't see the difference between "If you get caught smoking pot in the apartment I'll evict you" and "I get to rummage through your belongings looking for any hidden pot stash at any time" or think one implies the other, I hope you never get to enforce any such mandate. Or at least I want to slap you with a fat lawsuit if you do.

Re:Unlikely?

[penguin_dance]

You're making the flawed assumption that for anything agreed to in a contract, any circumstancial evidence or means of verifying it is implicitly ok. Just because the contract with my landlord says I can't do certain things doesn't mean he can set up video surveilance in the apartment or lock himself in and search it any time he wants to. Some random guy on the street can't get me evicted just by making an accusation. The ISPs don't know, don't want to know, shouldn't know and what you're seeing is nothing other than trying to force the landlord into being the moral police. If you can't see the difference between "If you get caught smoking pot in the apartment I'll evict you" and "I get to rummage through your belongings looking for any hidden pot stash at any time" or think one implies the other, I hope you never get to enforce any such mandate. Or at least I want to slap you with a fat lawsuit if you do.

Yes but the internet is a lot less solid as a far as laws go because cases are only now being tested in the courts. How many people are going to sue for getting kicked off one ISP? Chances are they'll just find another ISP. It becomes a matter of picking your battles. OTOH if you found the landlord had installed video surveillance inside your apartment, you would not only sue the apartment owners and the landlord, but the landlord would get arrested.

Of course, just keep in mind (in the US) if they someone rummages through your trash you put in the dumpster or left out for pickup, and finds some leftover pot stash, you'd have no grounds to sue or expectation of privacy. They can even legally get your DNA from a tossed cigarette butt or cup. (IANAL--I just watch a lot of CourtTV.)

Re:Unlikely?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making the flawed assumption that for anything agreed to in a contract, any circumstancial evidence or means of verifying it is implicitly ok. And, in turn, you're making the flawed assumption that a TOS is a contract.

Re:Unlikely?

[nomadic]

Just because something is stated in a ToS doesn't mean it's legally stated in a ToS.

"If you use our service to break the law, we'll disconnect you" is likely a valid, legally binding contract clause.

Re:Unlikely?

[SETIGuy]

Just because something is stated in a ToS doesn't mean it's legally stated in a ToS.

"If you use our service to break the law, we'll disconnect you" is likely a valid, legally binding contract clause. That may be what the clause says, but in the terms they actually use in practice are "If we suspect you have used our service to break the law or are told by an untrustworthy party that you have used our service to break the law, we'll disconnect you even if you have not used our service to break the law."

It's unlikely that that is a valid, legally binding contract clause.

Re:Unlikely?

[rtb61]

The reason of course why it should be a criminal offence for your ISP to interfere with your service is. If they set up a subsidiary company, or say your competitor has better contacts with your ISP then you do, they can simply kill your service and VOIP for a week or so with a claimed copyright violation, which can cause enormous harm to your business whilst giving your competitor and enormous boost. The RIAA/MPAA have absolutely no care for anybody else or even their own future. Random disconnects can be the death of a business and due to the nature of the internet everybody commits copyright infringement nearly every day.

To have everybody treated the same under law, all copyright content must be treated the same, so a copied photo, or web page design, by law would have to be treated the same. You could not even send birthday or wedding videos if they contain copyrighted music in the sound track. This gives enormous power to ISP to basically govern upon a profit basis, who will get a stable service, who will get an business destructive service and who can via a system of questionable complaints detsroy a competitors service.

This is of course beyond the horridly privacy invasive concept that the ISP should legally be able to continuously, monitor, analyse, filter and of course record your internet use (it has to record your use should it need to prove it's case). The privatised police state which the RIAA/MPAA will be forcing upon their own children and grandchildren in their myopic greed for their own personal profits now.

Re:Unlikely?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate speech? I am surprised to see that in a list of things that violate ISP TOS. Hate speech is freedom of speech.

I posted an article on one of my site that contains hate speech and praises terrorism as a demonstration of free speech.
http://www.theinane.com/911.html

Re:Unlikely?

[macdaddy357]

If they want high speed internet, most people have two ISPs to choose from: Their local phone company or local cable TV company. Get kicked off of both for violating TOS, and no high speed internet for you. A Duopoly can make you play by its rules or quit the game just like a monopoly.

Re:Unlikely?

[that this is not und]

if they someone rummages through your trash you put in the dumpster or left out for pickup, and finds some leftover pot stash,.... ....then you're a damned fool for not properly scraping resins, etc. etc.

Re:Unlikely?

[Anonymous Coward]

The terms don't say that they reserve the right to snoop in on your communications.

Even if the terms don't explicitly say they can snoop on your traffic, they can because it's their network.

Re:Unlikely?

[Anonymous Coward]

What privacy? The internet is public. Once your packets leave your cable modem they're getting routed all over the place, usually in plain text, where they can be looked at by anybody at any step of the way.

Furthermore, you're using *their* network. You're sending them data and asking them to look at it and route it for you.

You do realize we're talking about residential ISPs, right? They can literally save a copy of every single packet you send or receive. How's that for proof?

Re:Unlikely?

[kmac06]

It is not uncommon for hate speech or other legally protected speech or activities to (legally) be against a TOS. Just because you are legally allowed to say something, doesn't mean that someone else must legally let you use their service to say it. That is, they can't stop you from posting something on a forum, but they can stop you from using their service to do so.

Re:Unlikely?

[kmac06]

You're assuming a method of "enforcing" that the OP didn't necessarily mean. Searching all of your upstream for racial slurs is different from deactivating your account because a forum owner alerted your ISP that you have been posting hate speech.

Re:Unlikely?

[init100]

What privacy? The internet is public. Once your packets leave your cable modem they're getting routed all over the place, usually in plain text, where they can be looked at by anybody at any step of the way.

That they technically can do it doesn't mean that it's legal. After all, it's technically possible for the postal service to read your mail too, but that's illegal, at least where I live.

Furthermore, you're using *their* network. You're sending them data and asking them to look at it and route it for you.

There is a difference between looking at the header information necessary to route your packet to its destination and looking at your packet payload data.

Re:Unlikely?

[glitch23]

Nearly every ISP on the planet has terms of service, and almost all of them have provisions regarding the unauthorized distribution of copywritten material, child porn, hate speech, and so on.

Yeah gotta love that. They should take a look at their own news servers to see they violate their own ToS.

Re:Unlikely?

[glitch23]

Actually, it is more like the older users (as in, used a computer more in their lifetime), are more aware of what concequences the ISP can really do. After all, they AREN'T the copyright holders. They aren't the police. "And what the hell are you doing looking at my traffic anyway? If you are going to be like that, I'll just go somewhere else!"

That is possible except the poll said that younger people showed they would be more likely to change their behavior not the older people so although you have a good theory it doesn't seem to match the (unscientific) poll.

Re:Unlikely?

[Knuckles]

Usually I don't do that, but it's the second time I read "copywritten" within a span of a few comments, so I want to point out that it's about a right to copy, not about a something written, and therefore it's "copyrighted".

Re:Unlikely?

[Crayon Kid]

Exactly. It may seem far-fetched, but they're doing it to themselves (or, rather, the government is twisting their arm). Once they start showing they care about what they transfer, responsability is around the corner. If you know what the customer is doing then it stands to reason that you also know about the attacks his computer is receiving from the Internet -- so how about taking responsability for that? Not pretty, eh?

Re:Unlikely?

[mdwh2]

No it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. If they put in the terms "and you agree not to be gay" and then they find you having sex with a member of the same gender and end your service because of it you get sue them for breach of contract. Doesn't matter if you knew it was there or not, it's illegal for them to end your contract for that. That's a kinda extreme example, but any terms that aren't legal don't count.

That would only be a problem because of laws against such discrimination (which in the UK were only brought in recently - or possibly not in force at all yet). Otherwise there might be an issue about time lost or getting your money back if you've already paid upfront for some service.

But beyond that, you have no right to force someone to give you a service - they can still end the contract for any reason, just like you can.

Plus I'm not sure that taking them to court where your argument is that you were "only" doing something illegal is a particularly sensible course of action.

Re:Unlikely?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Especially considering copywriting is something else. (Hint for the lazy: It means writing copy---writing advertisements.)

Re:Unlikely?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Be careful. Some ISPs (mainly telcos) want to control what content goes over your Internet connection, so they can bill you differently for it. That's what the "network neutrality" movement is fighting against.

Re:Unlikely?

[mdwh2]

Though rent contracts tend to specify minimum terms, or minimum notice periods. It might also be that there are laws requiring this for renting. Internet access however is just seen as a service you buy no different to any other.

Then there is the legal aspect. I'm sure ISPs prefer not to warn for the same reason that my landlord doesn't - why give up a customer? They put the term in the TOS I imagine just to reduce liability (and my rent contract also has a clause about not doing illegal activities). But if they risk being sued for knowingly allowing people to download, then they may respond - this doesn't happen with renting. Furthermore if the Government passes a law requiring ISPs to disconnect their users, they don't have a choice.

(Plus I suspect there is a practical point - an ISP can easily terminate your service, but kicking someone out who's living there and refuses to leave and has all their stuff there it's harder - it's usually better for a landlord to cooperate a little bit so that you are more likely to move out willingly.)

Having said that, given how important Internet access is today, I do think it would be good to have stronger protections for customers. But in the UK, given that the Government thinks it would be perfectly fine to have millions of people unable to get Internet access, I'm not sure that's going to happen here...

Re:Unlikely?

[Knuckles]

Exactly, I forgot that. Thanks for pointing it out!

Re:Unlikely?

[quiksand]

The ISP I work for has a 4 strikes and you're out policy. You get warnings on your first two DMCA violations, a third violation gets you a suspension and a $100 reconnect fee and a fourth violation gets you disconnected for good. We don't look at any traffic but we do get complaints from the copyright holders of the material being shared illegally. We never single out P2P traffic and track the IPs back to the customers. We only act when we receive a notice from the copyright holder. We look at the date & time of the violation as well as the IP address and track it back to a customer. I think the ISPs should crack down of illegal filesharing if the person sharing the file isn't the copyright holder. If the ISPs do nothing to the users then the ISPs will get hit with a lawsuit.

Re:Unlikely?

[Kattspya]

Indeed they do, in fact my soon to be ISP forbids its users to use the internet. Here's a few (poorly) translated excerpts from their ADSL ToS:

The customer may not connect computer resources for the purpose of freely and/or with monetary compensation provide goods, services or information to a third party [The direct translation would be outsiders].

I wonder if they'll sever my connection if I email them through gmail asking about that clause.

During usage the customer is allocated a dynamic IP-address. The service may only be used by one (1) person at each specific moment

This ISP provides toy routers as a part of signing up to most or all customers.

Re:Unlikely?

[mrv20]

That only works if they are found to be throttling infringing traffic more than non-infringing traffic. It doesn't prejudice their neutral status to heavily throttle (for example) all traffic using the bittorrent protocol as they can reasonably claim that the decision was made purely based on bandwidth criteria. Inspecting the packets to determine the protocol doesn't require making a judgement about the legality of the contents.

Having to deal with less hassle from the copyright enforcers is of course a nice benefit for the ISP if they throttle protocols with high incidences of infringement but they're equally penalising those customers who use them to do nothing but download legitimate content.

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

99% of people downloading copyrighted stuff know its illegal, and also realize its wrong, and that they should be paying the content creators. The temptation of easy free stuff is just too great for some people.
It's like speeding. people speed every day, until they get flashed by a speed camera and given points on their license or a fine. Then they suddenly start obeying the law they ignored.
This would be a win for everyone. Nobody wants to waste time suing potential customers. People should be warned, and then we can go back to a normal, functioning market.

Re:No surprise

[Omestes]

Don't usually respond to ACs, so feel lucky:

99% of people downloading copyrighted stuff know its illegal, and also realize its wrong, and that they should be paying the content creators. The temptation of easy free stuff is just too great for some people.

Doubtful, I think there is a large minority here on /. who think it is their ethical obligation to NOT buy things from the RIAA, thus piracy is acceptable to them. Some people think of it as a peaceful protest, or act of civil disobedience in protest of a flawed, tyrannical, and oppressive business model. Granted they might know it is illegal, but not wrong.

Content producers SHOULD be paid, but the record labels try not to do it either. Other business models would work better, some think.

To be pedantic, you do realize that EVERYTHING is covered by copyright, including your comment, which I just downloaded, right?

People should be warned, and then we can go back to a normal, functioning market.

When a large portion of your potential customers are branded "illegal communist pirates", I would say that the market ISN'T functioning. When no one wants to be forced into your service, then YOU ARE WRONG, and your business model is wrong. When you need legislation to make you profitable, your dysfunctional.

I don't condemn or condone piracy, I see both sides of the issue. That said my previous paragraph stands, and I think that the *AA's are broken, and deserve to die.

Re:No surprise

[Dan541]

99% of people downloading copyrighted stuff know its illegal, and also realize its wrong, How is it wrong?

My download affect no one but myself (and other network users)I
be allowed to use my connection for anything I wish.

Re:No surprise

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm impressed. I saw your comment branded "flamebait", and expected, well, exactly that. Your opinion is a valid, reasoned one, and certainly not put in an offensive manner. I have no idea what the mods were smoking, but I want some of it. I just have one little objection:

When a large portion of your potential customers are branded "illegal communist pirates", I would say that the market ISN'T functioning. When no one wants to be forced into your service, then YOU ARE WRONG, and your business model is wrong. When you need legislation to make you profitable, your dysfunctional.

The "large portion of the potential customers" you refer to are people who don't want to pay market price, but are happy to pay practically nothing. The only reason why there is such a group is because there is a way to get it for practically nothing, but that way should never have existed. If there were a way (illegal or not) to get anything for free, you mark my words, there will be people who would rather deal that way. Basically, the problem is not so much with the **AAs, but the market itself. Mind you, dealing with the situation in a less than competent or sympathetic manner is an entirely different matter.

Re:No surprise

[aproposofwhat]

The only reason why there is such a group is because there is a way to get it for practically nothing, but that way should never have existed.

Should never have existed from whose point of view?

The sharing of copyrighted material over networks was inevitable once the decision was made by the content providers to issue their material digitally - i.e. as long ago as the inception of the CD as a medium.

Personally, I neither download nor share music (more from apathy than anything else), but the business model of copyright breaks down in the digital era, and nothing short of draconian enforcement will allow that model to work this century in the same way as it did in the last.

I don't like draconian, so my opinion is that the copyright holders need to get a clue and work out some other way of adding value to their (currently very poor) product.

Re:No surprise

[Omestes]

It's odd, all these copyright conversations are beginning to feel a little cliche, I think collectively we have probably attacked every solution, and problem in the debate many times over, copyright reform is a bit like waiting for Godot.

The "large portion of the potential customers" you refer to are people who don't want to pay market price, but are happy to pay practically nothing.

This is true, people like free. And while some /. folk might do it in protest, the average person probably doesn't care a bit. That said, I'm going to veer into some potentially unpopular handwaving, I think that copyright will exist, as an optional thing, there will be artists like Nine Inch Nails who will release things under some Creative Commons licenses, and then the other group will have to rely on cheap prices (cheaper than iTMS), and weak DRM.

We probably will disagree with above, but really the main gist is that the current situation is bad, for consumers, pirates, and artists. Notice I failed to include the middle man, there is no need for them in a digital economy, unless you really want to own a meatspace CD.

Re:No surprise

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Should never have existed from whose point of view?

The law. Instituted and kept there by sock-puppet governments of the people.

Personally, I neither download nor share music (more from apathy than anything else), but the business model of copyright breaks down in the digital era, and nothing short of draconian enforcement will allow that model to work this century in the same way as it did in the last.

That's actually not necessarily true. You could easily cut down on 99% of the infringement out there by monitoring P2P networks and sites on the internet. You may think that an invasion of privacy, but it really isn't, since none of the information was private to begin with. All that would be left is infringement between two familiar parties, and the damage of that is really minimal, since the copyrighted works can't spread virally from stranger to stranger, only close friend to close friend. Copyright law would be effectively enforced, with no privacy invasion necessary, and losses a tiny fraction of what they are currently.

Reading the data another way...

[Tackhead]

> When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.'"

When broken down by who's paying the bills, an obvious trend emerges: People who have to answer to Mom and Dad as to why nobody in the family can get their email anymore are generally more likely to change their behavior than people can just buy another throwaway account.

Re:Reading the data another way...

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Also consider...most of the older age groups who *do* still download illegal content off the net are potentially a smaller group who *started* back in the Napster or whatnot days. These people have been doing it for longer and are set in their ways, while half the teenagers don't even realize what they are doing is illegal.

~Jarik

Re:Reading the data another way...

[Zemran]

We are also those that grew up with cassette tapes and copied everything at college that anyone brought in. It was just an accepted part of life and nothing can convince me that it is now theft. The picture of the world has changed but those that live there have not noticed.

Re:Reading the data another way...

[aproposofwhat]

But...

Home Taping is Killing Music!

Ah, nostalgia...

Re:Reading the data another way...

[shalla]

I'm not completely sure it's just that teenagers are not the ones paying for the account. I think it's also likely that they may not realize what they are doing is not considered acceptable by everyone, and if caught, would stop.

Most of the upstairs of my public library is a no-cell-phone zone. We ask that people take their cell phones to the area that is designated for cell phone use up here. A lot of people are simply oblivious to the rule (regardless of signs), so the staff are used to politely asking them to please take their cell phone to said location. Teenagers are MUCH more likely to react positively than older adults. It's like a light goes off in their heads, "Oh! Yes! I can go there and not bother people!" and they go. Adults aged 30+ are a mixed bag of responses, but in general they are less polite and sometimes very rude about out it. (To quote one man, "Jesus Christ, lady! Look, Mitch, I'm getting bitched at for using a cell phone in the library. I'll have to call you back." That was the response to, "Excuse me, sir, but we ask cell phone users to please step over into the vestibule area." I am such a beeyotch.)

So in my experience, teenagers are more likely to bow to societal pressure, whereas older people have a somewhat greater chance of deciding that they will do what they want, where they want, screw you for even thinking about interfering with them and their rights.

Real change?

[KublaiKhan]

But for -how long- is the question--perhaps just until the 'new version' comes out that'd keep 'em from being caught?

Re:Real change?

[nevali]

Yup, but I'm pretty sure none but the cheapest of El Cheapo ISPs would implement a policy of no P2P whatsoever.

P2P traffic patterns just say you're doing P2P, not what you're sharing with peers. Plenty of legitimate applications use P2P (Skype, iPlayer, 4oD, not to mention legal BitTorrent sources).

Re:Real change?

[KublaiKhan]

There are plenty of legal reasons why you would encrypt your traffic.

Or have you never heard of the concepts of 'trade secrets' and 'industrial espionage'?

Re:Real change?

[brandonbradley]

Nothing to hide doesn't mean you want others viewing it. That is the nature of privacy. Consider the difference in a public restroom between a stall without a door and one with. Which one are you going to pick? If you aren't doing anything illegal you have nothing to hide right?

But

[slapout]

P2P != illegal file sharing

Re:But

[nevali]

Notably posted the day that Trent Reznor releases a good chunk of an album on ThePirateBay (amusing in itself simply because of TPB's notoriety).

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

It was released not just on TPB, but also several other torrent sites, including the so called 'oink replacements'.

Re:But

[shmlco]

Right. Only, what, 70-80% of the traffic consists of illegally distributed content? Hardly worth mentioning, really.

Re:But

[shmlco]

If "P2P != illegal file sharing" is +5 "Informative", then remarking on the amount of traffic devoted to legal and illegal sharing is equally informative, and not trolling at all.

Re:But

[croddy]

no, not trolling. and i am sure you simply forgot to add that the percentage of P2P traffic comprising unauthorized distribution is a declining share, as more and more folks deploy P2P networks for game updates, sanctioned video services, software distribution...

Re:But

[nevali]

(Parent is quite clearly not a troll, incidentally)

Yes, there is a lot of illegally distributed-content. That's a given. What's not a given is how the ISPs (or indeed, anybody) is supposed to distinguish between the two at all reliably. Without a mechanism for that, the whole thing is moot.

Re:But

[nbucking]

Yeah and tell that to the people who developed utorrent or azureus. There are plenty of files out there best shared via bittorent. I mean if every slashdotter's wet dream came true the best way to get linux is via bittorrent. But that is only the tip of the ice berg. I download from a site called Jamendo.com. They give you the option to pay the artist you are listening. Also, although still illegal, the TV producers have given in to public demand for torrented tv. They have even been known to release prereleases on bittorent in order to find out if a show will be popular. This helps decide the best times to show the show to the general non torrenting public. And do not forget availability. Most shows on the BBC are not going to be on American television stations unless the American producers decide to buy rights to show it. Like Japanorama or Primeval. But besides that there are many places where people can only afford internet. P2P=everything good in the world.

Re:But

[RiotingPacifist]

I don't get how this is redundant its just been hit by the -1 disagree mod stick!

Id insist that they show im not using that 20%, especially as a large chunk of my filesharing is, OSS or music i left at home.
I own physical CDs to alot of the music ive downloaded, its just a hassle to bring it down to uni when i can just download it here, (i had server windows issues just after ariving so i suddenly got the space to store it).
I also download a lot of indie music and if its on an indie label ill go out and by the CD (i still wont rip it as i only by it to support the label).

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Most shows on the BBC are not going to be on American television stations unless the American producers decide to buy rights to show it. Like Japanorama or Primeval.

Primeval is not a BBC show. The point is true though.

The same goes for us here in the UK. We do get a lot of US shows but they're usually shown 9-18 months after being shown over there. I dont see why I shouldnt get to see The 4400, Heroes, Dexter or other great shows when everyone else sees them. I buy the DVDs so they're not losing money. If anything they make more money out of me because I've got a lot of other people into buying them on DVD too.

Its even worse for anime. In the UK we get only a small fraction of the anime shown in the states and like there its usually the awful stuff made for kids with violence removed and annoyingly rubbish dubbed voices. Fansubbed anime usually has better/more accurate subtitles and is better quality than anything available OTA or on DVD.

Re:But

[Dan541]

P2P != illegal file sharing Didnt your mother teach you to share?

You clearly dont know what p2p is.

Re:But

[hclewk]

Are you on crack?

Lets look at the numbers:
There were 17,034 murders in 2006 in the United States. (source)
We don't know how many of these were gun related, and the same gun could be used for more than one death. But for the sake of argument (and to make you look just a little less like a moron) we'll assume that 17,034 different guns killed 17,034 people.

"The net of civilian guns made available for use is about 68.6 million guns over a 14 year period, for an average of 4.9 million guns per year." (source)
That's just how many new guns were made and given to civilians. That doesn't count the tens of millions of guns that were purchased years before.

So if, as you say, "95% of guns kill people illegally", then last year about 4,655,000 people in the U.S. died from being shot by a gun. Which is odd, because I thought there were about 17,000 people murdered... hmmm...

From my calculations, a very, very high estimate of the percentage of guns that are used to kill people is 0.34%, as in about 1/3 of 1%.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even know what '!=' means?

Re:But

[msormune]

No, but about 99% of P2P is illegal file sharing.

Re:But

[Zemran]

and Iraq != WMD

and The Sun != newspaper

etc..

but the public are easily fooled, Joe average just wants soundbites, not facts.

Re:But

[mpe]

Most shows on the BBC are not going to be on American television stations unless the American producers decide to buy rights to show it.

In the case of drama series produced outside North America all episodes tend to be complete (and substantially paid for) before any are broadcast. The US approach of repeating episodes is at least as much to do with ensuring that production continues to be ahead of broadcast as it is about the quirks of gathering ratings in the US.

Re:But

[mpe]

The same goes for us here in the UK. We do get a lot of US shows but they're usually shown 9-18 months after being shown over there. I dont see why I shouldnt get to see The 4400, Heroes, Dexter or other great shows when everyone else sees them.

It's a bit more complex than that. In the US episodes are broadcast whilst production is still ongoing. Hence you can get a series which is cancelled "mid season". Just about nowhere else on the planet will not put up with the show some episodes then repeat them meme, no doubt those in the US wouldn't either if they were actually given the choice. It's quite possible for a North American (quite a lot of US TV is actually made in Canada) series to have it's first episodes shown first in the US or Canada and it's last episodes shown first in the UK. This was the case with Babylon 5 so it's been going on for at least a decade. You can even see this happening with torrents where the station idents (including DOGs) change...

Its even worse for anime. In the UK we get only a small fraction of the anime shown in the states and like there its usually the awful stuff made for kids with violence removed and annoyingly rubbish dubbed voices.

Again this is nothing new, "Battle of the Planets" from the 1980's had so much cut that US originated footage needed to be added so that viewers wouldn't notice the continuity gaps too much.

Percentages

[Wowsers]

And now many users would tell their ISP to take a hike and move? It's not their job to "police" the internet, just provide the access to it. I told my last ISP to take a hike when they started to use "traffic shaping", even on stuff like VoIP (many saw it as a way of being cheap on bandwidth while charging a tonne - and like me left).

Re:Percentages

[everphilski]

I told my last ISP to take a hike when they started to use "traffic shaping"

And if removing 5% of users like you results in 50% more bandwidth to dish out to commercial customers who pay waaay more than you do, in the end, on a spreadsheet, it's a net win for the provider. They won.

Re:Percentages

[Wowsers]

And if removing 5% of users like you results in 50% more bandwidth to dish out The ISP had at that time already forced out of the user base all the "heavy" bandwidth hogs, they just thought they could turn the screws on everyone else and people would accept it, well they didn't. 10GB a month (what I was doing and includes VoIP) is not a bandwidth hog. They also kept the price up whilst cutting a whole load of stuff like Usenet access. I was not going to pay the same money for less service, maybe you'd put up with it, but many didn't.

Re:Percentages

[Anonymous Coward]

And now many users would tell their ISP to take a hike and move? It's not their job to "police" the internet, just provide the access to it. I told my last ISP to take a hike when they started to use "traffic shaping", even on stuff like VoIP (many saw it as a way of being cheap on bandwidth while charging a tonne - and like me left).

<sigh>If only it were that easy</sigh> My apartment complex has an "exclusive" deal with Comcast. I hate Comcast. I'd love to be able to switch to RCN, or Verizon FIOS. I'd consider DSL, but I don't want to give up my 10 Mbps speed (yes, I do get that on download - I regularly download kernel source tarballs and get 1MByte/sec).

So when I got such a notice from my ISP, I reluctantly shut down Azureus and haven't fired it up since...

Re:Percentages

[Eddi3]

They may have won, but he also won. They both got what they wanted.

Yay capitalism!

Re:Percentages

[MrSteveSD]

More and more people are downloading legitimate video from Itunes etc, yet some ISPs have ridiculous policies of throttling users after just 350mb. Virgin Media in the UK are one of the worst offenders in this area. They keep offering super speeds but what's the point of paying for it if they just throttle you when you use it?

Stop, or stop now and try again later?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all

Suggestive question

[Yokaze]

"Would you stop doing illegal things, when reprimanded by someone?"

Did they also asked: "Would you stop your perfectly legal activity, when reprimanded by your ISP?"?
Or: "Do you think it is right, that your ISP should monitor your activity on the internet?"

Re:Suggestive question

[IANAAC]

I use bit torrent all the time. On one occasion I received an email from my ISP (Speakeasy) stating that they had received a letter from HBO stating that I was found to have been downloading a show (I was. This was prior to On Demand). That was the only time I ever received anything from them, and I regularly download ISOs via bit torrent.

On top of that, the email I received didn't even directly implicate me. Basically they suggested I "secure my wireless connection".

I believe, at least with Speakeasy, that they will only contact a user when they are contacted.

Re:Suggestive question

[smallfries]

What about: "Would you stop doing something that you weren't doing if somebody accused you of it with no real proof?

Re:Suggestive question

[dbolger]

I used to work for the abuse department of a major Irish ISP. We received hundreds of emails a day about our users allegedly breaching copyrights. Some were from studios, most were from outfits like Web Sherriff. Under the law at the time (now sure how it goes these days), we were under no obligation to follow up on these and had no inclination to either. The vast majority of the mail was from automated systems and we bulk deleted them without even reading them. The very occasional would be written by a human (or at least, would be a boilerplate mail with a human contact's name attached). These got a boilerplate reply in turn, telling them that we were not required by law to enforce their copyrights, and referring them to the police if they wanted to make a complaint. We would of course have handed over our logs had we been requested to by the police, but in the two years I worked there, we never were.

Re:Suggestive question

[Joe Jay Bee]

Why in the name of fuck on a pogo stick is this -1? Excellent post,

Re:Suggestive question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, programmers, musicians, actors and directors all deserve to get paid for what they do. The problem is they all wish to get paid ridiculously high amounts of money for things that are only worth a few thousand dollars at best. What they all really want is not to get paid, but to abuse a clunky system. I'm sorry, but because of their attitude, they do not deserve anything. I think those people deserve to be educated more than the one who "pirate".

Teenagers

[truthsearch]

When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.

Because teenagers are more likely to feel they can't live without the internet. Older internet users may have been on it longer, but can remember a time when they easily lived without it.

Re:Teenagers

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They're talking about (illegal usage of) P2P, not internet access itself.

Re:Teenagers

[kmac06]

but can remember a time when they easily lived without it. Pshh...if you call that living.

70% do not know.......

[UezeU]

about PeerGuardian.

is this the internets version of speeding

[petes_PoV]

people know (downloading copyrighted stuff) it's wrong, but they reckon that so long as no-one gets hurt ...

Just like with speeding. You get pulled over, maybe you get off with a warning, maybe you get a fine and points (In the UK 12 points on your license and you lose it for a time), or maybe you get off with a warning. Either way you are more aware for a while - then you're back to your old habits.

Will downloading P2P copyrighted material be the same?

You get a warning, stop for a while (maybe change ISPs, so the new one doesn't have a record of your "offence") and then drift back to your old behaviour.

If this is a good analogy (comments?) is there really any way to stop it completely - or do people just expect to punish the most blatant offenders and keep everyone else, more or less, under control?

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[Sciros]

Terrible analogy, although it does involve automobiles so you get bonus points making it an "alright" analogy.

The thing is, you can download all the copyrighted material your HDs can possibly hold and no-one will really get hurt.

If all that happened from my driving 125mph on the interstate was that some execs at Sony BMG lost a couple of bucks... man I'd go buy a Z06 and drive 175mph across the country fifty times!

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[Robber Baron]

people know (downloading copyrighted stuff) it's wrong Some people "know" a different reality...that it's about as wrong as me going over to my friend's place to listen to a CD or watch a DVD movie he's purchased or rented.

In any case it's not the place of the ISPs to impose a (flawed) version of morality on anyone, just like it's not the place of the phone company to monitor my phone conversations for possible illegal or immoral content.

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[91degrees]

It's a decent enough analogy.

The points system is a key difference but then, nobody ever got killed through copyright infringement. Personally, I'm a proponent of something more akin to parking tickets for copyright infringement. A fine large enough to make people think twice before infringing, but small enough that if anyone is caught they get no public sympathy.

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[jimlintott]

Downloading copyrighted stuff is not wrong. In fact the internet relies on our ability to download copyrighted stuff.

The page you are viewing has a copyright. It was downloaded so your browser can display it. Some vendor's pamphlets could carry copyright yet the vendor wants as many downloaded as possible. The problem exists with copyrighted material that was never authorized for free distribution.

Downloading isn't even the real issue. The copyright violation on some piece of music occurred when it was copied and shared freely. Notice that the RIAA keeps going after the sharers, not the downloaders.

I do think that the incessant downloader who never ever buys any of the material is a bit of a scumbag. I like to purchase movies, music, games and whatever because it encourages them to make more.

If my ISP called and tried to warn me about downloading copyrighted material, I hope the poor schlep on the phone is prepared. I do download, I do use P2P and I do download copyrighted material. All with full permission from the copyright holder. If you think I'm breaking a law, call the cops.

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[Lumpy]

Or you can learn about what you are doing and install software that helps to protect you.

PeerGuardian is a great start. It blocks a CRAPLOAD if the Riaa,mpaa and BSA rats and is updated daily.

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a notice from My ISP. One of those letters coming from NBC that were newsworthy for a while.

They listed a specific TV episode that I had torrented 5 months previously (kept up for 2 weeks and took down). They were mostly bothered that I was making it available rather than that I had downloaded it.

I thought it interesting that they'd single out that one and not the 13 subsequent episodes.

The ISP said to stop doing it and if they received more complaints they'd have to take action.

Anyway, what I learned was to not use public torrent, and I kept up my TV viewing but used a private 'members only' torrent site. I haven't heard anything since.

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[Hao Wu]

It was "wrong" before Napster, when artists expected their work couldn't be copied. Today, artists have known for MANY YEARS that technology has changed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with downloading in 2008. Don't want your media copied? Then don't produce it, fool.

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[Zemran]

What a load of bolox. If you get a blowout on your front tyre at 125 mph you will swerve and may kill someone. If you download 8 Tb of mp3 you might die of boredom (victimless crime). Completely different.

Speeding is ILLEGAL and for a good reason. P2P is not illegal and there is no reason why it should be. As it is not illegal there is no good reason for enforcing a ban on it especially as there is no ban in force...

Re:is this the internets version of speeding

[PieceofLavalamp]

Thats right because if they did they'd be stealing valuable jobs from hard working American intelligence agencies

Wouldn't stop, just change

[Starturtle]

People wouldn't stop, usage would simply change as people found other methods of acquiring their music, movies and software such as usenet, irc etc. This could also lead to the discovery of new and unthought of methods.

Encryption

[mrbill1234]

They can't stop legal P2P - there is nothing illegal about that. All that will happen on the illegal side is it will go encrypted - then the ISP will have no idea of what is being transferred which kind of absolves them.

Re:Encryption

[shmlco]

No, it just means that sooner or later they'll start shaping encrypted traffic, whereupon we can thank all of the parasites for having screwed up yet another legitimate internet protocol.

Re:Encryption

[BlackSnake112]

How would an ISP determine this? Is the ISP going to have to look at what you are downloading to see if you P2P is legal? It is a lot easier for the ISP to block all P2P traffic then to see if you are downloading a Linux ISO or mp3 file. Then again what is to sop Sony and the rest of the *IAA groups from sending letters to all the ISPs stating that these ranges of IPs have been downloading their content. Accuse first to get the downloading stopped then show proof later. I hope it doesn't happen but someone will do it at some point. By me, Cox is pausing my network connection all the time. I only run the P2P when I am downloading something. When it is done I shut it off. (Linux ISOs and other stuff that is listed as free is legal to download) And for days with no P2p running my net connection gets paused. Not for long usually 1-3 minutes just long enough to time everything out. I have called and all I get is there are no outages in your area. It is a pain but DSL costs more and no fiber connection for my area.

Re:Encryption

[mrbill1234]

"Then again what is to sop Sony and the rest of the *IAA groups from sending letters to all the ISPs stating that these ranges of IPs have been downloading their content. Accuse first to get the downloading stopped then show proof later."

Isn't this what they are doing now?

Re:Encryption

[garett_spencley]

Technical Question: How do you differentiate encrypted traffic from, say, any other kind of binary data ?

Technical Question #2: (assuming that #1 has a solution) What do you when <big corporate customer> calls and complains that their IT staff can't use SSH to connect to the web server from home and must, instead, spend 30 minutes driving to the office on a Sunday morning at 2am to figure out why it's not responding ?

Re:Encryption

[shmlco]

Other than https/port 443? Torrent traffic, with large amounts of data coming in (and going out) to a widely distributed network of IP addresses is a relatively distinct pattern. Personally, I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches.

"What do you when calls and complains that their IT staff can't use SSH to connect to the web server from home...."

Like I said, torrent traffic is a different pattern. An SSH connection is a steady link to a particular IP address, which is also known from an RDNS standpoint. Pretty easy to tell corporate accounts from IP blocks designated as belonging to home service providers.

Re:Encryption

[mrbill1234]

Ah, but how do you differentiate between legal and illegal torrent traffic?
There are plenty of legitimate uses for torrent type P2P traffic - and if anything, this will only increase.

Re:Encryption

[shmlco]

Like I said, if I were them I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches. There are certainly legitimate uses, but as 80% or so of all traffic is estimated to be illegally distributed content, those legitimate uses are overshadowed by illegitimate ones.

Most of the parasites are there because they can get content for "free". If, however, they're now paying out of their own pocket for everyone else to get free content, I'd be willing to bet that the proposition would begin to look quite different.

And if you REALLY need that Linux distro, I'm sure you won't mind paying a buck or so to get it. ;)

Re:Encryption

[Atomic Fro]

But that would make you a copyright infringer. They would be paying you for someone else's content. Its one thing to charge them to get on to the internet. Its also one thing to throw links to torrent files on your non-revenue generating site. But to single out and charge specifically for torrent traffic, I believe, puts you at odds with copyright law.

Re:Encryption

[malkavian]

Except, as you already noted, that if you stick that kind of price tag on it, you'll find that the majority of the net is leeches. And you can't have that high a leech to provider ratio and actually distribute anything.
By the time you'd managed to download from the hundred seeds, you'll have probably provided 30 or 40 distros worth of material. Maybe more. That would soon add up to a not-so-trivial amount, meaning that people would soon be stopping acting as seeds. This would mean the availability may just not be there at all after the initial seeds get tired of funding 100x download volume in upload, just to make sure there's enough availability on future seeds. Which would kill p2p, putting all the bandwidth cost back to providers (such as Linux distros, Open Office, so on, so forth), which really could spend the cash on much better things.

P2P relies on a good portion of the people engaged in the share not being leeches, or it all falls over.

Re:Encryption

[shmlco]

"P2P relies on a good portion of the people engaged in the share not being leeches, or it all falls over."

Precisely. So if upstream charges are used then it becomes a revenue stream for ISPs, and if P2P usage drops then they get 60% or so of their network bandwidth back. From their perspective there's no downside...

Re:Encryption

[shmlco]

Most DSL services already list different bit rates, like 1.5mpbs down and 600kbps up, and cable is even worse. As such, charging more for upstream usage would simply reflect the fact that upstream bandwidth is more limited. Either way, you're only paying for the service, not content.

Re:Encryption

[TheQuantumShift]

So how about when they start requiring a hefty fee to transmit your encrypted traffic? As in, "Large amounts of encrypted data? Well you must be a bank of some kind, you must purchase our Business Class Account for that." Encrypted traffic will be turned away at the ISP unless you purchase the super premium cable package. This is really where I see it all heading and I see the government facilitating it (just think how easy those terrorists will be to catch when they can't encrypt their emails...)

Commandment 11, Don't Get Caught

[Sorthum]

I'd take a warning as "You need to find a better method of obscuring what you're doing, like tor..."

Re:Commandment 11, Don't Get Caught

[pikakilla]

Even though you said "...like tor", please do not suggest using tor for p2p. It will slow the already congested network. It would be better to say "an encrypted vpn in a country with better privacy laws than "

Re:Commandment 11, Don't Get Caught

[pikakilla]

meh, forgot about the html

"an encrypted vpn in a country with better privacy laws than [insert country here]"

i didnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I was warned by my ISP when getting a torrent of Rome.
I stopped using torrents for that sort of thing. Now its encrypted usenet (www.usenetserver.com is my provider) or i live without it.

it was further found

[circletimessquare]

that 100% thought that traffic encryption and ip obfuscation would be desirable features of the next generation of file sharing apps

get clue, riaatards. the game is over. you lose. your business model is dead, and cannot be extended with legions of lawyers

Re:it was further found

[nahdude812]

It's not the RIAA whose business model is dead, they are in their heyday right now, with all these lawsuits and legal fees.

It's the recording industry whose business model is dead. They're different entities, and even different industries, the RIAA is hired by members of the recording industry, and the RIAA is having the most profitable time of their existence.

More like...

[Anonymous Coward]

70% of P2P users would lie about stopping if polled about "illegal file sharing". The other 30% just don't care.

Re:More like...

[urcreepyneighbor]

90% of the participants self-identified as "gay black midgets".

70%? and for how long?

[sckeener]

Change their behavior? come on...these are teenagers...they'll just look for another way...say a friends computer or a shared computer. I'm willing to bet that it is = to a gambling urge and the moment something that the want comes out that they can't get any other way but by downloading...they will download. And they should.

If you want to get paid for your stuff, you better make sure all those that would pay for it legally have the option to...

case in point...regions on dvds. If say a blockbuster movie was released in DVD in the US but not in, say, ASIA...do you really think everyone of that 70% (that wanted it) will wait for it to be released?

The media groups need to embrace 'online'. They need to release product 'online'. They need to market it 'online'. They need to get everyone so hooked on getting their information 'online' that people 'offline' are looked at as pathetic. Then the media groups can release to the world...launch Ad campaigns to the world...and never have to worry about this region stuff again!

Mass warning-spam in 3, 2, 1...

[6Yankee]

Although I use P2P so rarely that they'd have to be pretty lucky with their timing to scare me, I'm sure that plenty of users could be frightened off the practice by a suitably vague mass mail. Rather than, "We have detected P2P usage", a strongly-hinting "Customers are reminded that..." might be non-accusatory and hand-wavy enough to get away with, while still having the desired effect. Now how much do you think the *AA would pay ISPs to do that?

Re:Mass warning-spam in 3, 2, 1...

[Fx.Dr]

Now how much do you think the *AA would pay ISPs to do that?

Zero, zip, zilch. They expect the ISP's to have done that from the get-go. It's in keeping with this sense of entitlement of theirs.

Re:Mass warning-spam in 3, 2, 1...

[Alsee]

Now how much do you think the *AA would pay ISPs to do that?

Oh goodie!
That means my ISP would be giving me a rebate check on part of my bill, right?

-

Re:Mass warning-spam in 3, 2, 1...

[6Yankee]

Fair point. Let me re-phrase the question: How much do you think the *AA would bribe politicians with to force the ISPs to do that?

Response to the EU Commission

[CrystalFalcon]

The European Commission recently had a public consultation about this. I'm surprised not more understand the issues involved - my response deals with just a few of them:

Response to Commission from Pirate Party leader

(the first few lines is a preamble in Swedish, followed by the actual letter in English.)

In short, this does not deal with copyrights and culture anymore. It deals with the cost to society of enforcing today's copyright. That cost involves the abolition of the messenger immunity, freedom of the press, and private communications as a concept.

No right exists in a vacuum - there is always a cost to society of enforcing that right. Without a proper cost-to-benefit analysis, no informed decision can be made.

Analysis

[DigitalisAkujin]

On the flip side, by having mass warnings it will be easy to figure out which techniques are undetectable and which aren't. We're actually very close to a totally secure protocol from TPB & various researches.

See:
http://securep2p.net/index.php/Tracker_Design
http://securep2p.org/index.php?title=MultiSource
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/papers/nsdi2007-set/

I got one of those...

[kinghajj]

...but I didn't stop downloading, I just stopped using BitTorrent unless absolutely necessary. Luckily, I've found a great, more secure, faster alternative.

When the warning comes, I would have questions...

[MarkKnopfler]

And they would be

1. Yes I have been using P2P, but I have been torrenting legal stuff like unlicensed media and free software. So why the warning ?
2. Could you please give me the reasons as to why you think I am downloading illegal content ?
3. Could you please show me the logs which show I have downloaded illegal content ?
4. What are the methods you have followed to come to the conclusion that the stuff I am downloading is illegal ?

If the ISP has valid answers for my questions, I will have no choice but to comply. It after all, is the law. The answers however, I would need.

Teens are afraid of their parents

[davidwr]

--snip--
From: ISP
To: Teen
CC: Parents
Subject: We know what you did last Summer
Dear Teen, we know you've been pirating music. The people who make the music you love so much want you to know PIRACY IS THEFT!!!! If this doesn't stop we will have no choice but to SICK THEIR LAWYERS ON YOU!!!
--snip--

Later that day:

Mom: Susy, we have to talk. We don't care if you spend all night online with your 35 year old boyfriend who sends you dirty pictures, but this piracy thing stops NOW or no more Internet for you!

Susy: But mo-om!

Strike what?

[Ungulate]

My friend has gotten his cable internet shut off a multitude of times because he can't seem to remember to stop seeding torrents. Each time, he calls up the cable co, gives them some excuse about how it was someone other than him, and swears it'll never happen again. Each time, they warn him about their "three strikes" policy, but he's on at least his sixth strike. Delightfully toothless.

Source?

[BlueParrot]

Just who is "UK media lawyers Wiggin" ?

I'm a self proclaimed British Media Expert, and I can hereby announce that a credible source has revealed to me that 85% of artists think privacy and free speech is more important than profit.

Sorry, but based on previous events "media lawyer" is not something which smells particularly credible.

Re:Source?

[moderatorrater]

Just so everyone in the world understands this once and for all, any name that is or sounds like "wiggum" will forever lend an air of ineptitude. The only way this is offset is if the person has read "ender's game" more recently than they're watched the simpsons; that number will always be low enough that you just shouldn't risk it. They should have gone with the other partner, hopefully something with a lawyerish name, like "Bruckheimer" or "McBeal".

Re:Source?

[Spad]

I would presume that they are http://www.wiggin.co.uk/

Hilarious

[GlL]

I work for an ISP in the US, and I find this to be hilarious! 70%! Bull--oney! I have told customers about cease and desist letters our ISP received, and the response that I have gotten universally has been: So what?

Maybe in a less independantly minded country 70% is the case, but on this side of the pond the best response you will get is laughter.

Whoever posted this article, thanks for a much needed laugh.

Re:Hilarious

[steelfood]

Maybe that was a typo, and they actually meant, 'a' instead of 'so'? It would make more sense, and I mean, the keys are practically next to each other.

Re:Hilarious

[sa1lnr]

"Maybe in a less independantly minded country 70% is the case, but on this side of the pond the best response you will get is laughter."

Also, on this side of the pond independently minded doesn't mean not giving a shit.

Re:Hilarious

[pandrijeczko]

I guess that makes the BitTorrent version of Britney Spears latest CD a Weapon Of Mass Destruction then? Cool, take the bitch out once and for all!

well then

[deathtopaulw]

70% are pussies and are only doing it because they're cheap
Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker

Re:well then

[Z34107]

Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker

Too bad pirating something you never would have bought does about $0 in economic damages.

What was your media budget pre-internet? That's about as much damage as you can inflict regardless of how much you piss off your ISP.

Re:well then

[moderatorrater]

Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker I downloaded the complete discography of Metallica 13 times, just to show them what's what!

Re:well then

[Skuld-Chan]

Or... downloading movies I never watched.

Re:well then

[Jherek Carnelian]

What was your media budget pre-internet? That's about as much damage as you can inflict regardless of how much you piss off your ISP. Not so. You ignore the network effect of the damage inflicted by all the people he uploads to. If you want to say that the damage they do is limited to their pre-piracy budgets, then you have to take into account the network effect of all those pre-piracy budgets too.

That's one reason I freely lend from my DVD collection. All my DVDs were purchased through legit means (usually used or at bargain/inventory-clearance pricing levels) but each time I lend one out that's one less sale for the studio, or their proxy, the rental stores.

Re:well then

[firephoenix962]

Too bad pirating something you never would have bought does about $0 in economic damages. The damage isn't economic. The **AA does the PR damage to themselves with their frivolous lawsuits.

Re:well then

[Z34107]

You ignore the network effect of the damage inflicted by all the people he uploads to.

Possibly, if he was the last seeder, there could be a network effect.

I would call it negligible otherwise - and it's offset by the money you're giving to your ISP rather than to the producers. You're just shifting profit around.

Re:well then

[Z34107]

The damage isn't economic. The **AA does the PR damage to themselves with their frivolous lawsuits.

PR damage -> Economic damage. How many /.ers quit buying music CDs because of the seething rage at the star-star-ay-ay they feel deep within the tumultuous passions of their souls??!

Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Bryansix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Roy

Alexander Roy beat the record for the Cannonball Run while hitting up to 160 mph and averaging 90 mph and yet did it all completely safely.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Shagg]

If by "completely safely" you mean "a complete idiot who treated public roads as his personal race course and put innocent lives in danger, but luckily no one was killed", then yes.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[garett_spencley]

Hypothetical scenario:

Let's say everyone on a free way is driving 100mph when the speed limit is 70mph. What is the safer speed to drive: 70mph ? Or 100mph ?

Of course that might not be a fair example since if EVERYONE was speeding you don't really risk getting pulled over.

But the point is that driving fast does not necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you're alert, matching traffic, keeping your eye on the road and leaving adequate space between you and other vehicles you can drive quite fast and still be completely safe.

Anyway in my opinion speeding limits are just another preemptive law designed to make the government richer at the expense of the population. Does imposing speeding fines lead to fewer accidents ? The answer may be "yes". However, throwing the book at anyone who physically injures another while driving could have the same effect. If you're driving dangerously and you end up killing someone there is still manslaughter, reckless driving, public endangerment, charing them for any repairs to public property and to the victim's vehicle, medical bills etc. I'd rather punish people for actually hurting people rather than for nothing.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Shagg]

There's a big difference between driving the average speed of everyone else on the road versus what this guy did. But I think you knew that.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[joeytmann]

Not everyone has the nerve to drive 100mph, let alone 70mph.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[It'sYerMam]

However, throwing the book at anyone who physically injures another while driving could have the same effect.

"I don't need to obey the speed limit, I can control my car." I'd prefer the dangerous drivers pay the government for the roads I drive on (or would, if I owned a car) so that I don't have to pay as much road tax.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Bryansix]

Ha! If you can't drive 70 mph then please stay out of California. Everyone here averages 80 mph.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Omestes]

Quoth my father (a professional, and life-long truck driver): "My number one complaint about drivers, is that everyone drives beyond their ability".

This is true, how many burgeoning, novice, race car drivers do you know, who have no real ability whatsoever except watching NASCAR and knowing how to powerslide in a parking lot. Everyone overestimates their ability, its a natural law almost. Just because YOU think your a good driver, doesn't mean you ACTUALLY are. Just because you think going 130 on the freeway is cool, doesn't mean you have the ability to do so. And how bad do you want to share the road with 600 wanna be Dale Earnharts eating bagels, drinking coffee, and text messaging?

I never really understood people who speed, or drive like arrogant morons, I like taking my time, and enjoying the scenery/skyline/weather/radio, and I think I'm better and safer for it. Like the 3 minutes you save by speeding really makes much of a difference.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>I'd rather punish people for actually hurting people rather than for nothing.

Speeding tickets are not a cure-all for traffic accidents. Rather, they are meant to influence behavior. It is better to prevent manslaughter than it is to punish it.

>>If you're alert, matching traffic, keeping your eye on the road and leaving adequate space between you and other vehicles you can drive quite fast and still be completely safe.

And that is a HUGE if. Most people in the U.S. are unable or unwilling to drive safely as you described.
Egregious speeding is a sign of other unsafe behavior. I'm sure that you could show that, statistically, people prone to causing accidents are chronic speeders. And I also think that you could show that safe drivers typically drive close to the speed limit OR travel at the same speed as surrounding traffic. And as you said, if everyone is speeding, you don't really risk getting pulled over. If people can't control their own behavior, then there need to checks in place to force them to not risk other people's lives.

Maybe I'm biased because I drive close to the speed limit, I have never caused an accident, and I have never had a speeding ticket. On the other hand, everyone I know who has caused an accident speeds all the time. That's just my experience. Most people are not as safe as you and me, and cannot be trusted to regulate their own behavior safely. The roads are not a playground.

-b

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Sciros]

How smug. I rather share the road with someone who concentrates on the *driving* than someone who thinks he's better/safer enjoying scenery/skyline/weather/radio.

The best drivers are people who like to drive. They're not easy to spot, but you can in fact recognize these people based on what car they're driving. A "driver's car" like a 3-series coupe, a Lancer Evo, a Z06, etc. You're safest when you're by these folks. (Note the converse/inverse are not true, obviously. You don't need a Z06 to be a good driver, but if you're driving one I feel OK giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

Next time you see an accident scene on a road shoulder, take a look at who is involved. I've yet to see the kind of car that people buy *to drive.* No, the people are almost invariably teens or people who treat the vehicle as simply something to take them from point A to point B. So they drive at the speed limit, enjoy their scenery/weather/skyline/seriouslywtf/radio and think they're model drivers.

So yeah, you might think you're a good driver, but you're exactly the kind I would avoid on the road if I could.

Not to mention that by going the speed limit when everyone on the freeway goes 5-10 above is actually *more* dangerous than going with the flow of traffic. You're not safer for it.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Omestes]

Actually most of the models of car you mention are often the ones I see in large accidents, and oddly enough the ones I see weaving through traffic at 30+ the speed limit. I'll grant 5 over, if it is the flow, is probably safer, but 20-30 over is reckless and stupid, no matter how much someone enjoys it. Oddly, these "people who like car's cars" are also the ones weaving back and forth, 30 over, without using blinkers, who don't pass in appropriate lanes, and leap through gore points to get their exit. Yes, I'm forming a stereotype, but oddly they exist because there is some truth in them. Also, oddly, your saying only people who can throw down a decent wad of cash on their car can be good drivers, which I don't find to be true, and, hypothetically could lead to an erroneous statistical sample (if this wasn't purely anecdotal), where 90% of the cars out there are NOT expensive performance vehicles, thus less of them logically crash.

Rhetorically, if you enjoy driving so much, what is the hurry to get there?

I'm sorry for misrepresenting myself, by enjoying the scenery I don't mean gocking at the nicely lit building to your left, instead of the road, which probably is as moronic and dangerous as text messaging, or filing your taxes while driving. I meant more "your in a car, there is a nice breeze, the sun is out, whats the damn hurry?".

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Sciros]

I picked very specific cars because they in particular are the ones that I haven't seen driven by anyone other than competent drivers. Even others in their "class" (i.e. 911's) wouldn't be "drivers' cars" in my view because I see at least as many people buy them "because they're Porsches" as I do "because they have superior handling" or whatever. If you can't drive very well, a Z06 is downright *dangerous.* An Evo is such a bare-bones track car that no-one who doesn't take driving seriously would even consider one. Etc.

These also aren't the folks who drive 20-30 over on highways. You're confusing them with the SL500 drivers, the Jag XK drivers, etc. The folks who, yes indeed, just throw down a wad of cash on whatever they saw an ad of on the back of the latest Road&Track. Though I probably see something like a small Saturn or a tuned Civic do that more often than not. The "real drivers" that I'm referring to go with the flow, just maneuver better and are more attentive than your average driver.

The people who truly enjoy *the act of driving* aren't the scenery kind of people. They're race track people. They know their vehicle well, they know how to watch the road, etc. They have their eyes *on the road* at all times. And they're smart enough to know that weaving in and out of traffic is only going to endanger their machine.

Me, I like driving. I appreciate scenery, nice weather, etc. as much as anyone else, but I get the most enjoyment out of my car when I'm going 50 on winding country roads where all my focus can be on the act of driving. BTW I have never received a speeding ticket. I agree that there is no need to really break the law to enjoy the road. (Though, on a long stretch of road out West, if there's no vehicles in sight, there's nothing wrong with hitting 135 for a couple of seconds ^_^.)

These are all blatant generalizations I'm making, of course. As for that bit of statistics you mentioned, well, I've seen expensive performance vehicles crash enough. Proportionally it's probably the same as any other class of vehicle. But I've seen 100k Porsches driven by all sorts of people, including ones who clearly bought it just based on the 'prestige' of the brand. IMO it takes a more particular kind of person to buy a car that *only* makes sense if you can appreciate its performance.

But yeah the whole idea of "if you like to drive, why hurry," well, I'm never in a hurry unless I gotta be. Regardless of what car you have, driving safe is the most important thing. I just find some personalities more likely to drive safely than others. And the folks who I most often find drive far less safe than they *think* they do are those who see cars are nothing but routine transportation :-/

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Phisbut]

But the point is that driving fast does not necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you're alert, matching traffic, keeping your eye on the road and leaving adequate space between you and other vehicles you can drive quite fast and still be completely safe.

However, you are aware that most people aren't alert, keeping their eyes on the road and leaving adequate space between them and other vehicles, right?

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

But the point is that driving fast does not necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you're alert, matching traffic, keeping your eye on the road and leaving adequate space between you and other vehicles you can drive quite fast and still be completely safe.

I wouldn't say you're completely safe. Sure, you're safe while you're driving, but when you hit your brakes (or when you collide with something) then E = 0.5 m v^2. In other words, when you are driving 100 mph, you have 2.04 times the kinetic energy of when you are driving 70 mph, and 2.37 times the kinetic energy of when you are driving 65 mph. All that kinetic energy needs to be dissipated by your tires/brakes if you want to come to a controlled stop, and all that kinetic energy will be dissipated if you crash into something. Four times the energy needs to be dissipated when you crash head-on into another vehicle going the same speed as you than if you crash into the side of a mountain.

I suspect that speed limits are set a little lower than some people want because the result is that people are comparatively much safer. (And won't you please think of the children?)

Physics is a bitch, eh? ;)

Let's say everyone on a free way is driving 100mph when the speed limit is 70mph. What is the safer speed to drive: 70mph ? Or 100mph ?

Good question, and I'd say it's a trade-off. If you drive 100mph, your speed relative to the vehicles traveling the same direction as you is lower, but your speed relative to the road, fixed obstacles, and vehicles traveling in other directions is higher. I'd guess that in this case, at 100 mph, a collision with other vehicles is less likely, but if it happens (or some other emergency happens), you're more likely to be screwed.

Come to think of it, the only way to unconditionally make the situation safer is to lower the speed of everyone on the road. On the other hand, the safest speed is zero, so if we're going to have a useful highway system, safety needs to be balanced against other factors.

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The best drivers are people who like to drive. They're not easy to spot, but you can in fact recognize these people based on what car they're driving. A "driver's car" like a 3-series coupe, a Lancer Evo, a Z06, etc. You're safest when you're by these folks. (Note the converse/inverse are not true, obviously. You don't need a Z06 to be a good driver, but if you're driving one I feel OK giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

Do you actually have the insurance numbers to back that up, or are you just quoting yourself and your friends?

Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid drivers do.

[Sciros]

Do you actually think insurance companies have a per-model policy?

Stupid Statistics

[kellyb9]

70% of P2P users would stop because its kind of difficult to download music and movies without an internet connection.

well, that's easy

[nguy]

Just send out a warning "We have detected that you're using illegal file sharing." to 100% of the users. Of the x% that use P2P, 70% will stop and 30% will ignore it. The (100-x)% who aren't using illegal file sharing will simply ignore it.

Re:70%? and for how long?

[Kalriath]

Wont happen. If they do that, they can't price fix their content over different regions (for example, $5 in Thailand, $30 in UK, $20 in USA, $40 in NZ)

Re:When the warning comes, I would have questions.

[Anonymous Coward]

And they would be

1. Yes I have been using P2P, but I have been torrenting legal stuff like unlicensed media and free software. So why the warning ?
2. Could you please give me the reasons as to why you think I am downloading illegal content ?
3. Could you please show me the logs which show I have downloaded illegal content ?
4. What are the methods you have followed to come to the conclusion that the stuff I am downloading is illegal ?

If the ISP has valid answers for my questions, I will have no choice but to comply. It after all, is the law. The answers however, I would need.

I have received such a notice from my ISP (thus my anonymous post). In the initial notice, they identified the specific torrent that I was transferring (an episode of Law & Order, not that it matters), which was accurate. The notice cited a complaint from the copyright holder. Presumably it came via one of the *AAs. I'm assuming it was a poisoned torrent. Since I work from home and can not afford to lose my Internet connection, I killed Azureus and haven't fired it up since.

Has no one noticed...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

That older, more experienced users wouldn't stop ... because they are experienced enough to circumvent detection. I, for one, would just do more proxy surfing, and encrypt my .torrent downloads.

Then again, I'm canadian, and the police/government/etc are more focused on the criminal groups which make money off illegal downloads - not end users!

Re:70%? and for how long?

[BlackSnake112]

The teenagers will just run their P2P apps on the school's computers.

I stopped sharing...

[b0bby]

So, back in the day, I was using DC++ & sharing lots of stuff. Then my ISP passed on a Cease & Desist from one of the movie studios about a movie in my share. This was when the RIAA was starting to take people to court etc. I stopped sharing anything except Linux ISOs and the like after that, and I only use torrents for the same. The risks don't outweigh the benefits, so while I would prefer not to be a leech, until (if?) there's a truly anonymous form of p2p, that's what I am. I'll still download from DC++ hubs, but there's nothing exceptional in my share :(

Re:I stopped sharing...

[Klaus_1250]

PerfectDark, Steathnet, Omemo, OFFSYSTEM. They don't compare to any popular p2p-app in terms of speed, but they are more or less anonymous.

Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really have a problem with the content-controllers who are going around trying to convince people that it is morally wrong to duplicate data. Their agenda and incentives are obvious, and to some degree, I can't blame them for trying.

I DO have a problem with people who sincerely believe that data duplication is morally wrong. We are talking about the arbitrary imposition of limitations of freedom of *every human soul* in the world to prevent the proliferation of an inexhaustible resource. This is utter madness.

It is different in the case of data that could be directly harmful to a person, such as account numbers, passwords, a social security number (or similar), embarrassing medical information, and so on. The free distribution of this kind of data has a very direct, and harmful, impact on a person. Real dollars that this person has earned, owns, and has in the bank, can be taken out of said bank, due to this data duplication. That is genuine theft, and it is enabled by the distribution of the data. I could accept that duplication of this kind of data is morally wrong, for this reason.

Duplicating a song or a movie does not have this kind of effect. You can't use an MP3 file to entice a bank to deliver someone else's money to you. That category of harm is just not there. It is true that the free duplication of this data means that the original creator may not get paid for every copy duplicated...but I submit that the expectation that he is entitled to receive money for every copy made is unnatural, unreasonable, needless, and ultimately harmful (as it encourages the deprivation of people's control over their own actions and over their own hardware which they have paid for).

Once upon a time such limitations on freedom may have been necessary. Today, there are not. Despite the free data duplication which is alive and well, and has been so for well over a decade, there is no shortage of new art production. The art industry is bigger than ever. We are doing just fine, and as such we don't need any peculiar notions of the immorality of data duplication (for intrinsically harmless data) in order to keep things humming along.

Don't submit to a system of "virtue" which was designed by rich people for the purpose of keeping themselves rich, to your detriment.

Re:Honesty

[Kortalh]

"It is true that the free duplication of this data means that the original creator may not get paid for every copy duplicated...but I submit that the expectation that he is entitled to receive money for every copy made is unnatural, unreasonable, needless, and ultimately harmful (as it encourages the deprivation of people's control over their own actions and over their own hardware which they have paid for)."

Would you be alright, then, if your boss came up to you tomorrow and told you that you would only be paid for 35 of the 40 hours you work each week? Or do you have the expectation that you are entitled to receive money for every hour's worth of labor that you have committed?

Re:Honesty

[QRDeNameland]

Would you be alright, then, if your boss came up to you tomorrow and told you that you would only be paid for 35 of the 40 hours you work each week?

Seems to me that the gov't came up to me on the very first day I ever worked and declared I would only get paid for about 25 of the 40 hours I work each week, and that they would take the rest. What's your point, other than that bad analogies make bad arguments?

Re:Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you be alright, then, if your boss came up to you tomorrow and told you that you would only be paid for 35 of the 40 hours you work each week? Or do you have the expectation that you are entitled to receive money for every hour's worth of labor that you have committed?

I think that this is a fallacious argument by analogy (and a bad analogy, at that).

If I sell my time to an employer (who has agreed to pay for it), and am being paid by the hour, then yes, I am entitled to be paid for the hours I work. That would include, say, spending my billable hours composing or performing music, or what have you.

When I decide to produce a digital product and make it publicly available, I am not suddenly an hourly employee of every person in the world. The relationship is quite different, so the analogy makes no sense.

If I produce a clump of data (say an MP3 of a song I wrote) and make it available on the Internet, then I will expect that other people will duplicate it and pass it on (because that is just what people do). Their duplication of the file doesn't cost me anything. If they were using *my* bandwidth to transfer it, that would be a different story, because that would cost me something. But if they are using their own resources to duplicate digital data to which I have given them access, then I must admit that they have not harmed me. If, on the other hand, I insisted on forcibly taking control of their computers away from them (to prevent them from duplicating stuff that I would prefer others pay me for), then I will have to admit that I have harmed them (by depriving them of the use of their own property).

It is not reasonable to give someone information and then to expect to be able to control what they do with it. Furthermore, it is not reasonable to expect people to refrain from sharing something that can be duplicated ad infinitum at zero cost. Finally, it is not reasonable to expect that I, as a musician, should be able to enforce the collection of money from every person that does this. If I fear that I will not be able to make a profit (because of the inevitability of data duplication), then I should find a different line of work. Leave the music-making to those who have figured out how to monetize it in the Information Age (rather than trying to litigate the information-sharing power of modern technologies away).

Just to further the point, here is another bad analogy that people often use: if you build a car, and someone takes it without paying for it, wouldn't you feel like you have been wronged? The answer: of course. I must expend resources (energetic and material) for each and every car I create. So, each car theft is harmful to me. In the case of music (or other digital products) there is effort expended only in the original production of it. No effort on my part is expended, nor are any of my resources consumed, if someone else duplicates it. So, morally, I don't have a leg to stand on. If that means I can't afford to produce music, then the correct course of action for me is to find a different line of work (NOT deprive the entire human race of some essential liberties regarding their own physical property).

As I stated before, enough people will find a way to monetize electronic product production despite free duplication. In fact, plenty already have. If we were suffering cultural starvation because absolutely no would-be creators can find incentive to create, that might be a different story (but I am only saying "might be different," I am still insisting that there is no absolute moral principle of distribution-privilege here). However, that is not the case, and I submit that it will never be the case, because anything that captures widespread public interest can be monetized (by various indirect means).

Step back and look at the big picture. Stop using ill-fitting metaphors. Information is not made of matter, it does not follow the same laws of physics, and as such it does not receive the same moral treatment.

Re:Honesty

[Kortalh]

I don't have time to make my response as long as yours, but I'm curious -- if you're a software developer, but you don't charge anyone to use your software, how do you earn an income? Is software development just a hobby that you do in addition to a non-IP-related job? Or are the donations from fans of your software enough that you can support a family from them? The question isn't meant to be rhetorical. I'm honestly just curious.

Myself, I am both a writer and a parent. If I had a way in which I could get my writing out to anyone interested without charging them, but still be able to afford to buy food and clothing for my kids, then I would be all for it. Should I sacrifice my passion for writing just because I'm producing words rather than, say, chairs or bananas? Should all artistic and cultural endeavors be pursued only as hobbies?

Ultimately, it may just be a stream of data that you're spreading from person to person, but without someone devoting a huge chunk of their time into arranging that data into an enjoyable form, you would be left reading a bunch of gibberish. Of course, you're reading my post, so maybe that's not entirely an unappealing idea to you. ;)

Re:Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're a software developer, but you don't charge anyone to use your software, how do you earn an income?

He clearly stated:

"I should not expect to receive money-per-copy. That is not how I monetize my work. Even with freely available software there is plenty of need for custom coding and maintenance work (all billable time). "

So, he charges by the time he spends creating and maintaining software, not per copy of software.

Re:Honesty

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I DO have a problem with people who sincerely believe that data duplication is morally wrong. We are talking about the arbitrary imposition of limitations of freedom of *every human soul* in the world to prevent the proliferation of an inexhaustible resource. This is utter madness. All of which would be great, except that the issue isn't the duplication of data. It's the taking of someone's work, which they do to make money (gasp), without giving payment. As far as I've ever been able to tell, it's only the "data wants to be free" crowd who tries to make this about copied bits.

Re:Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

(In order to avoid the Ad Hominems, I am a software developer, and I feel the same way about computer software that I do about music, movies, and any other electronic data product. I should not expect to receive money-per-copy. That is not how I monetize my work.

And how generous of you to impose your will on people who DON'T monetize their work that way. Why should YOU get to decide how someone else's work should be paid for? If I record a song why should you be able to give it away for nothing? You did absolutely nothing to create it, nothing to earn it, why should it be up to you to steal from me?

Re:Honesty

[VoltageX]

Bah, I would feel sorry for (hah!) the BSA, if they actually sent valid threats^H^H^H^Hnotices. I got one for something I hadn't downloaded. Rang the ISP, they said 3 had come through that hour, all invalid.

Re:Honesty

[Knuckles]

Gosh, I thought the misunderstood meaning of this statement as died out by now, but you must have missed it. Data wants to be free in the same way as water wants to leak. That's all it ever really meant.

Re:Honesty

[magisterx]

Who are these people that work a mere 40 hours in a week?

Re:Honesty

[CmdrGravy]

Just because musicians have been lucky enough to enjoy the benefits of technology over the last hundred years or so which lets them sell pieces of plastic or metal in order to share their music with people doesn't mean they should enjoy any sort of right to continue to do that when the technology changes again.

Now it has changed and we don't need to buy pieces of plastic or metal to enjoy sharing the musicians work with them and it's down to the musicians to work out a viable way they can make a living from the new situation.

The fact is people enjoy making music and there will never be a situation in which there is no music to be heard or no musicians to go and see play, creating and enjoying music is a more or less fundamental piece of human behaviour and there is no such thing as a shortage of music so if the current musicians can't make money from the situation then I'm quite happy for them to die off and make room for those who can.

Re:Honesty

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Gosh, I thought the misunderstood meaning of this statement as died out by now, but you must have missed it. Data wants to be free in the same way as water wants to leak. That's all it ever really meant. I agree that's all it ever meant, but that's certainly not how it gets used...

Re:Honesty

[Knuckles]

I don't know. I thought the misunderstood meaning was mainly used as a straw man to ridicule the position of the Free Software folks (heh. no pun intended), not by those actually arguing for all-free software, but obviously I don't have any statistics. That's also why I became annoyed when you used it for the same purpose. Anyway, it seems to me that the frequency of this usage has greatly diminished, please don't resurrect it again :)

Re:Honesty

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

And how generous of you to impose your will on people who DON'T monetize their work that way. Why should YOU get to decide how someone else's work should be paid for?

While abolishing copyright might be detrimental to society, your argument-from-entitlement can just as easily be applied in the reverse: "Why should YOU get to decide what someone else does with their money, equipment and media? If I buy a VCR, why should you be able to tell me what I can do with it? You did absolutely nothing to earn the money I used to buy it. You didn't even make the VCR!"

Constructive arguments for copyrights (or any intellectual property, really) are not based on a sense of entitlement, but on answers to the question, "How does copyright regime X benefit society, as a whole, compared to copyright regime Y?"

Re:Honesty

[Phisbut]

Who are these people that work a mere 40 hours in a week?

Heck, I work 40 hours a day!

Re:Honesty

[alexgieg]

Who are these people that work a mere 40 hours in a week?

I do. But then, I earn $15k/yr. Hmm... I guess it's time for me to stop being lazy...

Re:Honesty

[Avtuunaaja]

Re: why should it be up to you to steal from me?

I shouldn't. The point isn't that I demand everyone to give everything for me free. The point is that the measures content owners are taking to protect their content are excessive and infringing on my rights.

No-one should be able to read my ip traffic without my authorization, let alone do it with no accountability like the operators are doing now.

Re:Honesty

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Fair enough. I used it because the rationale behind GGP's post was basically identical to the incorrect usage. In other words, it seemed fitting at the time...

Re:Honesty

[Knuckles]

That's fair enough, too.

Re:Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

"Taking someone's work"? Think about the meaning of those words. Say you're an artist and have created an album. We are not talking about coming into your home and taking your CD, which you own, and which is the product of your hard work. We are talking about me copying the information on the CD that you sold me and that I now own and using my computer to make copies for other people. What you're talking about is not anyone "taking" your work, but duplicating data originally written by you. The only thing you have been deprived of is your expectation to deprive other people of their freedom to do with their own property as they wish. This is exactly what the grandparent is talking about.

For the future, I suggest you think hard about the meaning of each and every word you use when you attempt an argument. It'll save you from uttering nonsensical gibberish and sounding like a fool.

I would stop 70% of my downloading...

[Undead Ed]

But I would also stop 70% of my CD/DVD purchases.

Ed

Stealing from Bull Durham

[Scareduck]

"They're kids. Scare 'em."

Surely a mistake....

[Anonymous Coward]

"...teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users."

According to the media, all us teenagers are running around stabbing each other and generally being Anti-Social with out friends. How propostorous that we actually care about the law.

Ohwell, it wont be reported by the main stream media as this, its more likely to be "Teenagers admit thieving music and stealing millions from Record Companies". Why do people listen to it?

Profit

[shmlco]

"... maybe you get a fine and points..."

Interesting idea there, as it turns enforcement from an expense into a profit center, just like banks and credit card companies who make big bucks from overdraft charges and late fees.

And if the points add up and you lose your account, then what? Most people only have a few choices as to DSL or cable providers. Having a 6-month hold on any data lines to your house could be a major disruption.

But I think they'd like the idea of just slapping a $100 per-occurrence fine on your account even more. Why kill the golden goose?

I wouldn't

[AlgorithMan]

since i only use bittorrent to download CC material, linux distros and DRM protected videos, I wouldn't stop using P2P if i got a warning... I think I'd sue them for trying to stop me from using legal software for legal purposes...

Cox Communications

[__aaptsy9143]

I once had my service suspended by Cox Communications because I was seeding the movie Munich (which I ended up not even liking). They said that they received a complaint about the file being shared and that I would have to stop it from seeding before my service was restored. They also informed me that after 3 incidents, I would be blacklisted from their internet service.

That was some two years ago. I haven't changed my P2P habits much since, and Cox has never contacted me again for such practices.

-
I miss demonoid!

How is this an unexpected trend?

[smellsofbikes]

Teenagers are vastly more likely to be peer-influenced. If their friends are downloading, they will too, just like if their friends are listening to dippy singers or getting their eyebrows pierced. Similarly, their behavior is very easy to change -- many of them will stop doing things on request because they're not committed to the behavior, they're just doing whatever comes to mind. As people get older, they get increasingly set in their ways and increasingly persistent about their habits, whether it's downloading or driving without using turn signals or what have you.

It's pretty hard for people to accurately assess what they'd *actually* do in a hypothetical situation. We're very good at saying what we think we'd do, though, and saying that we're very sure that's what we'd do. I bet something more like 80% would *actually* stop their bittorrent habits if yelled at by their ISP... for a while, and then a new movie/song would come out, six months down the road, and a big chunk of them would go back to their old habits, and pretty soon it would ratchet back to where it was in the first place. I bet more than 70% of drivers say they'd stop speeding if they got pulled and got a verbal warning from a cop.

I wouldn't

[scubamage]

I download legal things using p2p software, so if warned I would tell them to bite me.

Re:70%? and for how long?

[StarkRG]

Yeah, because it'd just be sooooo difficult to block...

Empty threat

[Chess Piece Face]

Most teenagers aren't as experienced at recognizing these sort of things as the hot air that they are.

And how many of those who said they would stop would simply change to another P2P client until the warnings cease?

Poor Association

[Jekler]

I absolutely despise that "illegal" is almost always used in reference to file sharing. No one words other activities that way, such as illegal retailing. People need to start applying the descriptor to the appropriate specific activity, not to the activity as a whole. Stop calling it "illegal file sharing", refer to it as "illegally distributing copyrighted works" if you must, but don't word it in such a way as to marginalize file sharing as a concept. Some people might this this is nitpicking, but I do think that the way we phrase the activity shapes the public perception. Lobbyists just want to beat it into everyone's head that file sharing itself is illegal, but it's not, and shouldn't be thought of as such.

Re:Poor Association

[Jherek Carnelian]

I absolutely despise that "illegal" is almost always used in reference to file sharing. No one words other activities that way, such as illegal retailing. It's no different from the catch-phrase "muslim terrorist" - despite plenty of non-muslim terrorists (IRA, LTTE, ETA, KGK, ELN, FARC, DHKP/C, Kach, Shining Path, etc) who are usually referred to as just "terrorists" and the over-whelming majority (99.999%) of muslims who aren't terrorists.

Re:Poor Association

[amyhughes]

Except that "mulslim terrorist" describes a minority whereas "illegal filesharing" describes a majority.

Re:Poor Association

[Jherek Carnelian]

Except that "mulslim terrorist" describes a minority whereas "illegal filesharing" describes a majority. "Catholic terrorists"
"Basque terrorists"
"Kurdish terrorists"
"Hindu terrorists"
etc

Are all also "minorities" but are generally forgone for just "terrorist."

Re:Poor Association

[Heddahenrik]

I could call it "sharing files while breaking government supported copy monopolies".

But the combination of "illegal" and "sharing" quite strongly suggest that the law is evil. It's like a law against helping the poor! Well, it's actually in fact a law against helping the poor people who can't afford to pay for their files.

So then we can call "illegal file sharing": "breaking monopolies by sharing data with the poor"

50% of all statistics are made up

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Also, people lie and give political correct answers.

the boy who cried "wolf"

[petes_PoV]

Yes, this idea might work ..... once.

The first time you receive this email you might think a bit, but after that if you get it againa and again, I doubt you'd pay any attention. I dout this would have much effect after the first or second generations - no matter how much more threatening they made subsequent emails.

MOD PARENT DOWN: NSFW

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject. Mod this down when you're done.

What about the rest of us?

[TwoToeWilly]

I'm not saying that I'm "goody two toe" but will I be warned by my isp for downloading the latest Slack torrent?

I did!

[ucblockhead]

And I have no idea what all that encrypted traffic to the Tor routers is.

Re:I did!

[QCompson]

And I have no idea what all that encrypted traffic to the Tor routers is. I sincerely hope you're not clogging up the tor tubes with your p2p traffic. It's not nice.

Re:I did!

[base3]

Think of it as cover traffic.

70%

[OpenSourced]

And 70% of those would find that, without P2P, they don't really need broadband after all.

ISPs are rather aware of the fact that P2P is the main reason for many people to have broadband. They will fight like tigers against complying.

Re:70%

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course! I don't use broadband for things like:

Watching videos on YouTube (and similar sites -- especially those that are dedicated to porn!)
Playing online games
Voice chat
Browsing image-heavy sites (and uploading my own pictures)

I'm sure that nobody else does these things, either.

Warning

[Dominare]

I've had them from Comcast in the past. They send you a letter that basically accuses you of whatever, and all you've got to do is reply and say, "Prove it." Since the only reason they're contacting you is because someone has contacted -them-, they don't have any proof - they're just going on what AOL Time Warner or whoever has told them because its easier than fighting it.

Re:Warning

[myz24]

I'm kinda crappin' my pants here man. I took your advice and they DID prove it, your advice has never let me down before so what should I do now?

Correct

[bobs666]

P2P does not make it illegal. Here are many legal uses of P2P.
One example is MMO's sharing patches. Just the fact that ISP's
do not like P2P, since it lets people actually use the Internet
as intended bothers the ISP's. Its much simpler to cache A TV show
and feed it over the local pipe them it is for everyone to get it from
there friends recorder.

"teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users".


The Internet was P2P in the first place.
Older users know this. Servers talking to servers...
What you don't have a server?

Re:Correct

[Threni]

Also, the UK is not considering a `three strikes` policy - the government has specifically ruled that out.

just warn everybody...

[the brown guy]

Why don't they just send a warning letter/email to accounts with above average bandwidth, sure "innocent" people will be like wtf, but you could stop a lot of filesharing. However, about 2 years ago a friend of a friend of mine illegally downloaded a movie via bittorrent, and his ISP sent his mom an email stating the name of the file downloaded, and that he should stop. Nevertheless, he hasn't had any threats and continues to download movies and music illegally today. Why would the average university student pay for something they can get for free... *Note* my friend of a friend is in Canada so I don't think there is a real threat of being sued or abducted by the RIAA or anything like that.

Say Versus Do

[sjbe]

a new survey reports that 70% of UK broadband users would stop using P2P if they received a warning from their ISP. Good example the wrong conclusion from interesting data. It should read "a new survey reports that 70% of UK broadband users say they would stop using P2P if they received a warning from their ISP." They might not stop. What people say and what they actually do are often vastly different things. Polls can be accurate but you have to be very careful about what questions are asked and what the results actually mean.

Re:Say Versus Do

[sckeener]

What people say and what they actually do are often vastly different things.

My favorite 'what people say vs what they do' involves the classic beer drinking in village where anthropologist survey what the people say they drink and then look at the city dump...

every time the city dump has more beer than the survey says it should....

Beer...proof that god loves us...

Re:70%? and for how long?

[StarkRG]

I totally agree, since I've been able to afford cable and netflix there's hardly anything I torrent. The only things I torrent are things I can't get in these manners, like Dr. Who and Torchwood. Now, granted it is being shown here, but not in the correct order, or on time. If I'm going to carry on a conversation with people on the internet about either of these shows I've got to keep up to date, I have to watch them when they're first aired. So I have to download them.

However, if I didn't have a DVR I'd probably download more, for two reasons. 1) I like being able to watch things when I feel like it, not when they want me to. 2) I like being able to skip commercials. I guess it'll be a while before commercial paid TV is finally replaced by another model. It's already happening occasionally, the special commercial free presentations are usually sponsored by a very select few commercials, usually one at the beginning and one at the end, occasionally a short break in the middle. If there were more of those I probably wouldn't care as much.

i wouldnt say 'unexpected'

[jaymz2k4]

i would have thought that, like has already been pointed out, teenagers will generally move with their friends. if they are getting warned and pressure is being applied then they're probably more likely, i'd have thought, to stop or consider stopping p2p. older people on the other hand, myself included in that group, would either stick to what they do or look for a different way to do the same thing (eg newsgroups with ssl). when i was 16 i wouldn't have paid monthly for a giganews account. now im 25, i'll happily pay for it. i also feel like i'd take less notice of my ISP saying 'stop downloading' than i would as a teenager, since as an adult im in control rather than my parents.

Do you know that is true or are you making that up

[Chuck Chunder]

I am sure that "legitimate" P2P usage is on the increase, however I'm also sure illicit P2P usage still is too.

For illicit use to be a declining share legitimate use would have to be growing (in absolute terms) faster than illicit use and that sounds highly unlikely to me.

i'm missing the part where....

[timmarhy]

.... isp's are in the music business?

Re:i'm missing the part where....

[SevenDigitUID]

Really? Because I kind of remember a company called Time Warner offering both internet service and crappy records. I have a vague recollection of Comcast trying to buy Disney. They failed, but I'm sure they'd love to try again. Cox owns 79 radio stations. The dream of owning the content and the delivery system is alive in the ISP markets, don't for a second forget that.

teenagers are liars

[keester]

They say they would stop ..

Where's the tag?

[Xelios]

liesdamnliesandstatistics

C'mon people! You're dropping the ball here!

The Inenvitable Slippery Slope

[penguinstorm]

The problem here is that now your ISP gets to decide what "legitimate" content is. What's "legal" sharing, vs. what's illegal.

They can try to block .torrents all they want, and gnutella (although inevitably we'll find creative ways aroudn those blocks.)

In the meantime, does it constitute "legal" distribution of content? How does my ISP know what my packets are "illegal content" vs. "legal content", regardless of their destination. This puts the ISP in the position of judge, jury and executioner.

What if my ISP decides that Amazon and iTunes downloads are legal, but they don't add http://www.latentrecordings.com/ to their authorized list? (It's not P2P, but it's the distribution of media content.)

If I run a Wi-Fi hot spot and people are swapping P2P files on my open hot spot, do I get cut off? Am I now required to montior the use of my customers lest I lose a service which I'm legitimately paying for? How do I prove that it was Billy from Surrey who was doing something "illegal" and not me myself?

The whole thing is just far too big brotherish, and the slope isn't so much slippery as it is a rock covered scramble.

Some more information

[Xelios]

The survey, the 2008 Digital Entertainment Survey, was conducted by Entertainment Media Research Inc. They did a similar survey about 8 months ago, called the 2007 Digital Music Survey (PDF), also in the UK. In that survey they report, get this, "Unauthorised downloading is now at its highest level after last year's signs of decline - consumers are less concerned about prosecution".

Not to mention they were commissioned by Wiggin, a short browse through their staff reveals some gems like:

• Charles Moore and Miles Ketley are the only lawyers in private practice in the UK who have been studio executives in the United States.
• "we are currently representing the UK music industry in its actions concerning the unlawful uploading of sound recordings on fileshare networks."
• "Charles is...particularly known for his representation of major US production companies and studios"

Sure guys, I'll go ahead and trust those statistics now...

In other news, I'm thinking about starting my own "statistics consultant" company. $100,000 and I'll report whatever findings you want, interested?

Why -1?

[Peaker]

While I do agree with your conclusion, I think there is a flaw in your reasoning, or lack of recognition that this is a trade-off. If copyrights are abolished, maybe the world will be a much better place. However, all of us copyright-abolishment supporters must recognize that until you try it, you cannot tell whether the net effect will be positive. Maybe movies and games will all be at the level of current independent movies and games, or even worse than that. Maybe the needs of some expensive software niches will not be answered. Lots of negative possibilities arise from the abolishment of copyright. I agree that they are unlikely, but you must be honest and recognize the possibility.

I believe that the only way to know is to test it out. Declare all works as of 2010 to be public domain, and no new copyrights will be granted on anything. Give it a couple of decades and see how the market adapts to handle it. Then solve any problems that arise, and the market cannot handle.

Maybe we need some middle-ground, where copyright only applies to for-profit entities. Maybe some other, non-copyright creative solution should be used.

Moderators: Even if you don't agree, this guy makes good points, and represents a legitimate viewpoint that a lot of people hold. So why -1?

Re:Why -1?

[dryeo]

Moderators: Even if you don't agree, this guy makes good points, and represents a legitimate viewpoint that a lot of people hold. So why -1?

I've been seeing a lot of AC posts at -1, often -1 interesting or -1 informative. Generally all these posts have been good, good in the sense that I couldn't imagine modding them down and some I'd mod up. I don't know what is happening but it seems some group has an agenda to mark every AC post as overrated.

Re:Why -1?

[LingNoi]

Declare all works as of 2010 to be public domain, and no new copyrights will be granted on anything.

Ignoring the fact that no one would be brave enough to try and pass a bill like that, I believe that is a little too harsh as you're not giving time for the markets to adapt and try new models. It'd make a lot of businesses bankrupt.

If you really wanted it to work you'd need to reduce copyright on all products to 10 years. At least there is then motivation for creating new works.

Re:Why -1?

[Peaker]

You might be right about it being too sharp a transition.

However, those of us who support the abolishment of copyrights think that incentives to create new works are strong enough without copyrights, as with the incentive to create anything that is useful in a free market.

Re:Why -1?

[mdwh2]

I've been seeing a lot of AC posts at -1, often -1 interesting or -1 informative. Generally all these posts have been good, good in the sense that I couldn't imagine modding them down and some I'd mod up. I don't know what is happening but it seems some group has an agenda to mark every AC post as overrated.

I'm glad it's not just me who noticed this - the odd thing though is that I thought that "Overrated" normally still gets listed in the box where it gives the percentage of moderations (along with troll, informative, etc), but in these cases, it's the Starting score which is marked as "-1", and the "Moderation" is marked as "+1" (when it should be 0 if they got marked as overrated, with another person modding them up), with no mention of an overrated mod.

When I first saw this, I wondered if it was possible to have a Karma Penalty (or whatever it's called - when your starting score is lowered) based on IP for anonymous users, but now it's happening a lot...

It's very annoying though, makes it hard to follow a thread unless you view at -1 or 0, which defeats the point of moderation.

Not in Canada....

[MagickalMyst]

I'll bet those numbers would be reversed here in the Great White north!

Already happening

[cicho]

You are - everyone who has an employer is - already being paid less than what they "make", less than they are worth to the company. If you earn X a month, the company rakes in X+n from your effort alone.

So either your analogy doesn't apply, or if it does, the RIAAs of the world should be playing the same game and by the same rules everyone else is.

Re:Already happening

[alexgieg]

You are - everyone who has an employer is - already being paid less than what they "make", less than they are worth to the company. If you earn X a month, the company rakes in X+n from your effort alone.

That's not entirely accurate. Sure, the "X" you earn is less than the "X+n" the company makes by your working there. However, this "X" is usually more than what you would earn working all by yourself.

So, if we call what you'd make by yourself "Y", and "m" the difference between "Y" and "X", so that "X = Y+m", we can safely conclude that the company's managerial ability, by directing your work and organizing it with others' work, offers the world the extremely important service of improving their employees productivity by "e*(m+n)", "e" being the number of employees. And that, for doing so, it only requires "e*n", returning "e*m" back to the employees, so that everyone profits. The employees, from their increased productivity. The company, from providing optimized productivity to the world, increasing the overall prosperity.

Now, of course, for those individuals whose "Y" is greater than "X", they working at a company rather than by themselves is just plain silly. In this case, yes, there's a loss. And, this is important, not only a personal loss, but also a social loss. After all, the "Y-X" difference is also the amount of prosperity not being generated and thus not entering the social whole.

I call bullshit

[definate]

BULLSHIT!

I know a lot of people who have received warnings from their ISP in Australia, and I don't know one person who has taken them seriously.

This is from young users with parents to old users.

I even had a friend who, for a while received the regularly.

Zonk screwed up the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Zonk changed "illegally sharing files" to "P2P." You're reacting to Zonk's incompetence, not the actual article. It would be interesting, though, to see the exact survey form (does it actually ask about illegal sharing, or does it ask about P2P, or what?).

Heh

[Greyfox]

The towns around here have been taking to installing speed signs that tell you how fast you're going and flash at you if you're going over the speed limit. People will go down that road at 10-15mph over the speed limit right up until the sign starts flashing at them. Inevitably the brake lights come on. These thing have been in there for months now, and I'd been expecting people to become acclimated to them and start ignoring them. So far they haven't.

It seems to me that if people know (not think, KNOW) that Big Brother is watching them, most of those people will behave. And it doesn't take much to make people know that Big Brother is watching them.

For how long?

[Eskarel]

The problem with this survey is that it does't take into account how long they'd stop for.

A lot of folks stop speeding for a while after they get a warning from a cop. Virtually none of them stop speeding forever.

Most people stopped using the networks which got downed, and if there's a high chance of getting caught using a particular service then yeah they're going to stop, but with encrypted connections, and the general fact that ISP's will only do what they're forced to by law or which benefits their bottom line, and you're probably looking at a pretty low number of people actually getting caught, so you're looking at pretty low risk.

I know the brits tend to have a please sir give me some more attitude when it comes to government shafting(or so it seems lately, though the US isn't much better), but this seems rather silly.

Re:70%? and for how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is for most of the people I know if it is available online, then it is available for free. And they think it should be free. Online == free in many people's view.

Personally, if it is available online that means I can get it for free. Without paying, ever. Which means I will never pay for it. The idea of downloading a movie, watching it and then running out to buy the DVD seems utterly absurd. OK, I watched it. I can watch it again and again. Same with music - either I have it or I do not. There is no third option here.

How Long

[mistralol]

Yes they would stop. But i think the real question is for how long they will stop for ?

How long will it take them to get board of the music they already have ?

Re:70%? and for how long?

[Fallingcow]

Netflix+the local library+friends' music, movie, and TV collections (pirated or legitimate, doesn't matter) all combine to make it extremely inefficient for me to torrent 90% of the stuff that I might otherwise be inclined to.

All that's left are games, and about 50% of the time with those I'm pirating ones that I already own, but I've lost one or more of the discs or don't feel like finding them (especially with a well-seeded torrent of an older, single-CD game, I can have it in an hour or less with nearly no effort, while finding the CD might mean 15 minutes and a big mess). Sometimes it works in reverse, and I'll pirate the game when it's $60 (I *never* pay that much, even if I don't pirate the game; anything over $40 and I'll just wait, no matter how much I want it), play it once, delete it, then see it for $10 a year later, and buy it on a whim.

Re:When the warning comes, I would have questions.

[amyhughes]

5. Could you please restore my internet connection so I can carry on my legal filesharing?

i'm 18...

[cjdkoh]

...and to be perfectly honest, if AOL told me that they knew what i was doing with that suspicious looking 4GB a month, I'd probably stop.
i just can't be bothered to figure out how to properly set up encryption, proxies and whatever else the rest of you do to hide your p2p.

Did they ask how many would dump their ISP?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dumped Clearwire when they sent me a nastygram over running BitTorrent. Within the day I had a faster connection that was $5/mo. cheaper. I don't think the media companies are thinking about the Service Providers' customer loyalty and good will.

Actually speed does kill

[ylikone]

You speak the truth. People who speed are ignorant and love to spout the old "you need to all drive fast, it's safe if you all do it" and "speed doesn't kill". The problem is that hardly everybody can drive fast while maintaining proper control. Will you just tell those people they can't drive anymore? That is very unreasonable. If you want the privilege of driving, then you must drive at the speed that the average populace can handle, which is usually the posted speed limit. These are scientifically researched numbers, not just something they pull out of their ass because they want to ticket you for going 30 over that number. Also, about the "speed doesn't kill" quote... would rather be in a accident going 70 or going 90? Think that extra 20 is not going to make a difference? You want to take that risk with your life? Imagine a head-on at 70, 70+70=140. Now at 90, 90+90=180.... hmmm... both are bad, but I'd rather take my chances with 140.

Re:Actually speed does kill

[John Newman]

Also, about the "speed doesn't kill" quote... would rather be in a accident going 70 or going 90? Think that extra 20 is not going to make a difference? You want to take that risk with your life? Imagine a head-on at 70, 70+70=140. Now at 90, 90+90=180.... hmmm... both are bad, but I'd rather take my chances with 140.

Indeed. KE = 1/2*mv^2...
140^2 = bad.
180^2 = dead...along with the person you hit.

could it also be...

[amyhughes]

Could it also be that "illegal filesharing" is used to distinguish the activity in question from "legal filesharing", and that those with a guilty conscience don't recognize that "legal filesharing" is, indeed, being acknowledged as a class separate from "illegal filesharing"?

What

[Dr.D.IS.GREAT]

File sharing is not lawful? shit there goes my career as a paladin.. -- One thing that really grinds my gears, my ISP Verizon has never done a damn thing to filter my inbox -- Im surprised that, adelphia, comcast, charter or juno have never giving me a Violation of ToS -- Dr. D

or

[GregNorc]

Or maybe teens will simply download anonymously from the multitude of unsecured wireless access points in dorms, apartments, and office buildings nationwide.

Stop giving the spammers ideas!

[Ken_g6]

I know you meant the ISPs sending the e-mail, but I'm sure some spammer will pick up the idea. Next thing you know, we'll all be getting e-mails "from our ISPs" telling us that the MAFIAA wants us to settle out of court into a Nigerian bank account!

Not surprising unfortunately.

[dkarma]

Considering the lack of right to free speech and the massive distribution of CCTV in the UK it is not surprising at all that most of them would roll over based solely on a letter from their ISP. Sad but true.

They'll go old skool! Sneaker net!

[Gazzonyx]

Change their behavior? come on...these are teenagers...they'll just look for another way...say a friends computer or a shared computer.[...] I don't pirate software any more; I kinda' always assured myself that once I could afford software, I'd buy it. I also have my own moral issues with infringing. Ironically, being a software development major in college, I got fairly hardcore in to open source.

Anyways, prior to that, and in response to your post, "what, am I the only one who remembers the good old days of the 'sneaker net'? This game only requires two players, a mix of VIC-20's and/or Commodore-64's (or "IBM Compatible", depending on your age and what your cousin gave you when he upgraded), a neighborhood and bikes with baseball cards in the wheel spokes. Copy the disk (and the sheet of codes in the back of the manual for piracy protection, I forget what we used to call them), play the game twice, get bored of it, and repeat with another neighborhood kid. Just DON'T be that "kid whose computer can't run anything"! That's how you'll find yourself out of the loop at the bus stop.

Re:From The Homeland of

[Anonymous Coward]

Blair hasn't been PM for a while now. Get up to date please.

certainly, I'd stop

[alizard]

for long enough to switch broadband providers.

While I practically never use it, there are some software downloads one can only get that way. If my broadband provider wants to tell me that I can't use the connection I'm paying them for in order to do something legal, they can take that connection and ram it up their ass.

total bull

[rawg]

When I ran my ISP, I was constantly telling people to quit. They would stop for like two or three days then back to killing the network with movies and music. I started just turning them off and telling them to go somewhere else. Of course, there was no where else to go, so they had to go back to dial up.

If they don't want to follow the rules, then to hell with them. I didn't allow p2p on my network, and it's my network to do what I want with. They could just go out and buy their own T1 and pay $700 a month for sorta high speed.

I told them when they called, I told them when I hooked them up, and I told them when they did it the first few times. It's not like they didn't know, and it's not like I ever said unlimited do what you want internet access. It was a shared local network.

But I don't have to deal with that any more.

My response

[LingNoi]

Thank you, I'll now be switching my services to someone that values my privacy.

Trick Question or Bad Submission?

[Bones3D_mac]

Did anyone else notice the submitted article on the poll just automatically assumes all P2P activity is "illegal"? Is this merely poor wording/spin doctoring on the part of the submitter, or was the actual poll itself setting up those who participated in it into admitting their P2P activity was all illegal, while completely disregarding those who use P2P for perfectly legal purposes, but simply weren't aware of the wording involved?

Sounds just like the kind of crap one would expect from the **AA slime machine looking to destroy any legitimate technology that threatens their business model instead of simply going after the few individuals they have a civil axe to grind with...

Canadian users get P2P cease & desist.

[ah802]

Up here in the cold north, we get notices from our ISP's clearly passing the buck. They all have the southern air which we regard as shooting the breeze (gun regulations you know).

You have missed the most important bit..

[Sunil Sood]

a new study out from UK media lawyers Wiggin suggests that, if it works, such filtering could actually curtail "digital piracy" by 70 percent.

Warnings... all the time

[GC]

You may be interested to know that we (as an ISP) get these types of messages on a daily basis to our abuse accounts:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Re: Unauthorized Use of NBC Universal Properties
Notice ID: XXXXXXXXX
2 Mar 2008 14:07:33 GMT
 
Please be advised that NBC Universal and/or its subsidiary and affiliated companies (collectively, NBC Universal) are the owners of exclusive rights protected under copyright law and other intellectual property rights in many motion pictures and television programs, including the title(s) listed below (the NBC Universal Properties). NBC Universal diligently enforces its rights in its motion pictures.
 
It has come to our attention that Blahblah Plc is the service provider for the IP address listed below, from which unauthorized copying and distribution (downloading, uploading, file serving, file "swapping" or other similar activities) of NBC Universal's motion picture(s) listed below is taking place. We believe that the Internet access of the user engaging in this infringement is provided by Blahblah Plc or a downstream service provider who purchases this connectivity from Blahblah Plc.
 
This unauthorized copying and distribution constitutes copyright infringement under applicable national laws and international treaties. Although various legal and equitable remedies may be available to NBC Universal as a result of such infringement, NBC Universal believes that the entire Internet community benefits when these matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action to stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your actions. We appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.
 
Please be advised that this letter is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts or law as they may pertain to this matter or of NBC Universal's positions, rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are specifically reserved.
 
Please send us a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter, making sure to reference the Notice ID number above in your response.

As you can expect from any "abuse" email contact at an ISP, most of these go ignored, besides - The USA has no jurisdiction here.

In related news

[damburger]

70% of people who received a warning from the NKVD would stop talking shit about Stalin.

The fact that a law is capable of intimidating people is no argument in favour of its adoption.

Good example...

[djones101]

of a title that doesn't match the summary. The title implies 70% of ALL P2P users. When you actually read the summary, it's 70% of UK broadband P2P users that were surveyed. No margin of error mentioned, no mention of broadband or UK in the title either. Normally, I'd let this slide, but c'mon, it's not that hard to add in 2 more words...

70% switch to sneakernet.

[deimtee]

I think one of the main effects would be that the other 30% would become more popular with their peers as source nodes for sneakernet. It isn't difficult or expensive to carry a largish USB drive around to a friends place, and total file-swapping would probably increase. If you're there anyway, you might as well fill the drive.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a backpack full of hard-drives on a pushbike. :)

Knoppix and whatnot

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Ever notice how, using BitTorrent, you can download Knoppix and other Linux distros MUCH faster than pretty much any pirated media?

If some from my ISP warns me to stop using P2P, it'll be because of my Knoppix/Debian habit, and I'll be happy to ignore whatever he says.