Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
P2P != illegal file sharing
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
"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?"
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
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.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
70% of P2P users would lie about stopping if polled about "illegal file sharing". The other 30% just don't care.
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!"
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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!
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
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.
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.
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.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
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.
I'm a happy pessimist. I expect and prepare for the worst, when it doesn't happen I am pleasantly surprised.
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.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Just because something is stated in a ToS doesn't mean it's legally stated in a ToS.
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
70% of P2P users would stop because its kind of difficult to download music and movies without an internet connection.
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.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
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.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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?
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings