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??

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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).

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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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..."

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

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.

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?

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.

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!

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".

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.

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!

Stupid Statistics

[kellyb9]

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

I would stop 70% of my downloading...

[Undead Ed]

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

Ed

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...

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.

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: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'?

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: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?

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?

[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.

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.