UK ISPs To Hand Over Thousands of File Sharers' Data

Death Metal Maniac sends along a link from TorrentFreak on the latest development in game developer Topwear's battle against file sharers in the UK. "US game developer Topware Interactive, the people behind the now infamous Dream Pinball affair, are about to turn up the heat. Operating through London lawyers Davenport Lyons, they have managed to convince the High Court to send out an order demanding that ISPs in the UK start to hand over the details of several thousand alleged pirates ... BT, one of the UK's largest ISPs ..., confirmed it had been ordered to hand over details of alleged copyright infringing file-sharers ... Virgin Media was a little more slippery in its response but reading between the lines it seems obvious they are involved too."

Comments

Hard to pin down

[gotw]

IANAL, but consider that the majority of BTs home DSL equipment ships with WEP, often 40 bit WEP, enabled by default. Would this in itself be grounds enough to plausibly deny that the traffic came from the person paying for the box? Not to mention she sheer, massive, embarrassing level of negligence on the part of BT.

Re:Hard to pin down

[lysergic.acid]

if you're going to accuse or charge BT of negligence because they didn't catch these "pirates" then you might as well demand that ISPs start monitoring all traffic and forbid the use of encrypted connections. there's no way to accuse an ISP of negligence unless they're actually expected to encroach on the privacy of their subscribers. that's just not part of their job.

it's like accusing telephone companies of negligence because they don't monitor everyone's calls and make sure we're not discussing illegal activities over the phone.

Re:Hard to pin down

[Atlantis-Rising]

First of all, plausible deniability is not really a legal concept.

But secondly, the concept which you seem to be attempting to get across (i.e., introducing sufficient doubt so as to not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt) is not really relevant here. This appears to be a civil matter, in which case, it is on the balance of probability.

Moreover, you're basically saying that the majority of BT's customers were negligent and should be held liable for their negligence? I'm not sure they'd be happy about that. It's not like it's BT's fault.

Re:Hard to pin down

[gotw]

Lots and lots of these boxes are in use, secured only by 40 bit WEP. I'm saying that considering that WEP can be cracked with great ease, how easy would it be to deny that the traffic came from you. Could someone up in court simply say "I didn't do it, I guess someone must be abusing my computer/access point".

If BT thought such security was up to the user, why are they not supplying the boxes with an enabled, open wireless connection? They provide step by step instructions for its use and installation of WEP in an era when it is known to be deeply flawed. To what extent users should be expected to be educated about the security of their computer systems is an interesting point to debate. It would, however, be very easy for BT to use WPA-TKIP by default. The only reason I can fathom for not doing this would be the expense (and potential for bad feeling) involved in supporting users with old, WEP only drivers.

What are the odds of a WEP network in a suburban area being cracked into over, say, a year? I suppose it all hinges on that.

Re:Hard to pin down

[Spy der Mann]

According to them that's no excuse. You're responsible for your own equipment.

How can you f***ing be responsible for something you don't even know how it works? We do know, but what do the poor joe-users know? And why do manufacturers don't use a much stronger encryption so that only the users' machines will be able to access the network?

What we're dealing with is corporate negligence, and as usual, they blame the end user.

Re:Hard to pin down

[gotw]

I'm not accusing BT of negligence for not catching the pirates. I'm accusing BT of negligence because they are supplying their users with broken, easily compromised security when much better alternatives are available using the exact same hardware.

Re:Hard to pin down

[You ain't seen me!]

According to them that's no excuse. You're responsible for your own equipment.

When you receive broadband equipment under a contract, you are told in the small print that the equipment remains the property of the ISP - they can't have it both ways.

Re:Hard to pin down

[lazy_playboy]

If someone steals your car and runs someone down, you're not liable. Why should it be different in this case?

Re:Hard to pin down

[Atlantis-Rising]

Lots and lots of these boxes are in use, secured only by 40 bit WEP. I'm saying that considering that WEP can be cracked with great ease, how easy would it be to deny that the traffic came from you. Could someone up in court simply say "I didn't do it, I guess someone must be abusing my computer/access point".

Sure you could say it.

That argument, however, would not get you very far; it would be akin to arguing that somebody broke into your house, plugged their laptop into your router, and started downloading kiddy porn.

"Sure", the court will say. "That's a very nice story, and I'm sure it's very favorable to you. Have you got any proof it happened?"

Tossing out random and wild theoretical scenarios in which it is possible, but very unlikely, that somebody else did what you've been accused of and you've been framed is not generally looked upon very nicely by the Court unless you can provide some hard evidence to back it up.

Yes, it may introduce some doubt. The amount of doubt it introduces, however, is likely to be so small as to be unreasonable.

Land of the free

[ilovesymbian]

I'm glad I live in the US. Even though some ISPs cower in fear, most of them give us enough freedom to do what we want. We truly live in the land of the free!

Re:Land of the free

[sakdoctor]

Is that some sarcasm; it's impossible to tell?

Perhaps in the UK they (we? ex-pat here), haven't had the sue happy lawyers going after every man and his dog yet. But perhaps this is the beginning.

Re:Land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, in the US, the ISPs are free to hand over that data without bothering the court.

And if the FISA debacle has taught us anything, it's that they're more than happy to hand over data without worrying about minor little details like "due process."

Fortunately there's an election coming up, and you can vote for change! Wait, both sides claim they're for change? And both sides support warrantless wiretaps and telecom immunity?

Well, damn. If only there were another option, a third option...

Re:Land of the free

[TheMidnight]

Ha! That's a good one. Almost every ISP in the United States has given user IP address and account information away to any subpoena by the RIAA and its lawyers. This of course is civil and not criminal, but the ISP response is exactly the same. I've only heard of ISPs giving up user data for criminal investigations in child porn or murder cases (i.e. search results for "kill wife" or whatever nonsense the bungling murderer tried to look up) but that doesn't mean it won't spread.

Furthermore, even if the ISPs don't give up the information as easily here, they do track it, and if they're not using it for generalized network throttling, infrastructure improvement or aggregate trends, they'll sell every bit of data internally or to advertisers when they smell money. Privacy on the Internet via your ISP is an illusion in the States, at least for as long as the ISP can afford to keep the logs.

Re:Land of the free

[russotto]

Yeah, in the US, the ISPs are free to hand over that data without bothering the court. And if the FISA debacle has taught us anything, it's that they're more than happy to hand over data without worrying about minor little details like "due process."

The Verizon case -- where Verizon refused to hand over the data without a court order -- teaches us the opposite. Or perhaps just that Uncle Sam is a bit more persuasive than **AA.

Re:Land of the free

[moderatorrater]

If only there were another option, a third option...

Go ahead, throw your vote away!

Re:Land of the free

[L4t3r4lu5]

I wish 60% of the US population would "throw their vote away."

Re:Land of the free

[sm62704]

Well, damn. If only there were another option, a third option...

There are three pseudo-viable third options; parties that are on the ballot in enough states that should they win them all, they win the election.

Bob Barr

Cynthis McKinney

Chuck Baldwin

I plan on voting for Barr. Sure, he'll lose, but so will one of the two major party candidates. Why do the media insist that voting for a loser is a wasted vote? Could it be that they are owned by corporations, who bribe both candidates to get legislation (like the Bono Act and the PATRIOT act) passed with 100% or nearly so of the vote?

Re:Land of the free

[thermian]

uh, didn't you only have a 30% turnout at the last election?

Something pretty darned low anyway, so a lot of people already are.

Same things happening in the UK though, the elected leaders are voted in by an ever decreasing number of actual voters.

Re:Land of the free

[tiananmen tank man]

Interesting but False.

From an USAToday story [1], "Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants."

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Re:Land of the free

[pete-classic]

I think Penn Jillette said it very well, through the character of a sock monkey.

You can waste your vote only by voting for someone you don't want. You don't want the winner. Don't waste your vote on someone who's going to win. He doesn't need your vote; he's going to win. Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil.

-Peter

Re:Land of the free

[tonyray]

As an ISP in the US, we've been asked many times to hand over information wholesale to the FBI. Such warrants are not inforceable and we always ask them what it is they really want. Then they tell us specifically what they are looking for and we tell them if we have the data. If we do, they issue another warrant, signed by a judge, and they get the data. We narrow the FBI request down to the point that it identifies a single account. If it can't be narrowed to a singe account, the data would be worthless to them in court and they don't ask further.

Re:Land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the GP was referring to the RIAA/Verizon case, not FISA.

Peek a Boo.

[Anonymous Coward]

What?! I thought P2P allowed me to hide.

No need to worry

[elrous0]

They don't want to sue you or arrest you for file sharing. They're throwing you a party with cake and just want to know how to reach you to let you know about your party. Just stay where you are. A party associate will arrive shortly to collect you for the party.

Re:No need to worry

[StreetStealth]

Don't forget to assume the Party Escort Position!

Re:No need to worry

[dropzonetoe]

The cake is a lie...

I can't wait

[WormholeFiend]

for everyone to panic when the authorities start looking at online data storage services...

Dear media companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to sell single TV episodes for $2. If the price was $0.25 or $0.50 to rent it (i.e. view it once or twice, delete 48 hours after first viewing), I'd be a huge customer.

Stop trying to sell downloadable versions of movies for the same price as a DVD. If I purchase and download a movie, it's already costing me my limited monthly bandwidth and hard drive space that I paid for. If the movie sells for $20 on DVD, sell the downloadable version for $10. After all, I'm missing the extras, too.

Stop limiting sales to a single country, the internet is world-wide. I don't care who owns what and who's under exclusive contrats with which stations. It's your mess, figure it out.

Stop trying to put DRM which limit the usefulness of the media we want to buy. I don't want to watch movies and TV shows on my computer and I don't want to be tied to Microsoft-only hardware/software.

Do people want your content? Yes, otherwise they wouldn't pirate it. Do people want to pay for your content? Yes, if the price, format and limits are reasonable. Find the balance and it'll work itself out.

I, for one, won't bother with P2P and torrents if it only cost $0.99 for a tune I want. It's easier and faster to buy it from the iTunes Music Store. Their TV shows and movies, however, are too expensive.

Re:Dear media companies

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, won't bother with P2P and torrents if it only cost $0.99 for a tune I want. It's easier and faster to buy it from the iTunes Music Store. Their TV shows and movies, however, are too expensive.

You don't think that a TV episode (22 to 44 minutes) is at least twice as expensive to produce as a song (about four minutes)?

Re:Dear media companies

[jambox]

There are all sorts of restrictions that the industry puts on electronic media distribution, 99% of it is motivated by their desire to protect their existing business model. If the business model changes too much, the web of companies making profit will fall apart. They're ideologically unable to accept the truth; that is, advances in IT mean that eventually artists will sell directly to consumers. The only thing that will remain in between is the critics, DJs, journalists, etc who screen the huge amount of stuff for us. Distribution companies, duplication plants, agents, A&R, agents and lawyers will all be out of a business and shareholders will lose money - that's what they're trying to stop. That will probably happen to music first, but will probably generalise to TV and then movies in time. Inertia is caused by the amount of investment to make the stuff.

What affair?

[frovingslosh]

the people behind the now infamous Dream Pinball affair,

OK, I'll bite, what "now infamous Dream Pinball affair"? Gee Slashdot, this is the web and a post in HTML. Would it have been so much to ask that any such statement like this might contain a link to some past discussion about this now infamous thing that we are all supposedly in the know about? Is it too much to ask that an editor who accepts such a story either requires such strong statements to be supported or (if he's willing to do more than just accept a submission verbatim (you know what I mean, edit) put the link in?

Re:What affair?

[jambox]

http://torrentfreak.com/youre-caught-downloading-dream-pinball-settle-now-or-go-broke/

Re:What affair?

[bhunachchicken]

This is because of the woman who is facing a £16,000 ($32,000) fine for sharing Dream Pinball online.

Been Going on for a While

[segedunum]

They're using Norwich Pharmcal court orders, which basically obligate someone mixed up in wrongdoing (i.e. ISPs) to hand over information related to that wrongdoing. However, in many cases the ISPs seem to be handing over information without a court order, or signing off a confirmation with the letter they get from Davenport Lyons so they don't have to turn up to the court order hearing. The court order is merely in case ISPs are worried about little things like the Data Protection Act. They can then invoice Davenport Lyons, and in one case Telewest invoiced for over £18,000.

However, it seems that Davenport Lyons says that you can pay £300 and make all this legal stuff just 'go away'. I was under the impression that Norwich Pharmcal order were given out on a reasonable basis, simply because they can obviously be abused. I'm pretty sure that extortion, which is what this is pretty much, is against the terms of the order. You can't just use the order and the information you get from it to extract money from people.

Re:Been Going on for a While

[jimicus]

in case ISPs are worried about little things like the Data Protection Act.

Ah yes, the Data Protection Act.

That would be the law which is misinterpreted to mean that a mother can't complain about a present purchased for her 7 year old until said 7 year old has agreed that she can discuss it?

(Incidentally, the law is perfectly clear and was obviously not relevant in this situation - it's just been used as an excuse to be stupid by countless organisations)

And this would also be the law which despite numerous high-profile data loss cases has resulted in only one reasonably high-profile fine (which the organisation concerned publicly announced would come out of customer's pockets because they "didn't think it fair" to take it from the Chairman's bonus).

This is fucking ridiculous

[bhunachchicken]

I swear this contravenes the Data Protection Act.

And how come they are allowed to do such a thing?! One rule for them, another for us. Here's an example: The other day my brother calls me up to tell me he's lost his glasses. He's trekking in a jungle somewhere in Malaysia and now cannot see very well.

However, he asks me to get his prescription details so he can get a pair made up there. I then call the optician and explain the predicament. But, to my dismay, they refuse to hand over the details because it is a breach of the Data Protection Act. Erm... WHAT?!!

These ISPs should not be handing over any ones' details, at all. It's not like the users are planning to blow up Canary Wharf...

If you don't have $2, no one cares about you

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have $2, no one cares about you in the first place. You are like one bum on skid row: only a problem for the street sweepers. Heard of Tivo? No, I don't think you have. VCR? TV Guide + alarm clock?

Re:Ruin them!!!!

[Pvt_Ryan]

I should probably add teh following disclaimer:

I do not support or codone piracy in any way shape or form. The views expressed above are not my own.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct response to such a request is a unanimous "no" from all large ISPs, and to await the fine.

Then to put up subscription prices accordingly to reflect the amount of the fine.

Then all users of those ISPs know what the "rights holders" are doing.

Then it gets press coverage.

Then everyone knows.

Then people start to whine.

Then politicians see a bandwagon to ride.

Then the law gets changed.

But it has to start with atlas shrugging.

And I hate myself for making the Ayn Rand reference, sorry, but a group of powerful businesses needs to say "no, we want to trade freely and treat our customers with respect, fuck off government" rather than being in cahoots with them.

Re:no

[bigstrat2003]

democrats are not supporting it.

Obama's vote in the Senate record suggests otherwise.

but obama and his group had to vote for the bill...

The claim of cowards and liars throughout history. Obama voted for telecom immunity, and has shown what sort of man he is. Sad that you're too taken in by his lies to realize it.

Not *quite* as bad as it sounds

[clickclickdrone]

Recently there was lot of UK press about someone being made to cough up £16K for sharing MP3s. What the press omitted to say was that Davenport Lyons wrote to thousands of people saying 'You owe us £6K for piracy!'. Almost everyone wrote back and said 'No we don't, prove it'. DL did no more. The rest of the recipients ignored the letter and in the case in question, the person didn't even bother to turn up at court so got the full amount of £6K plus £10K costs against them.
I suspect they know damn well all they have is some basic data and not enough for any sort of solid case. Did they have entire files? Did the file signatures match known cheksums of copyright files? Were the connections wireless and unencrypted? Are there multiple users on a single PC etc. etc.

Re:Not *quite* as bad as it sounds

[Tony Hoyle]

The reason they didn't turn up is because they didn't actually know there was a court case against them - they had moved house and the lawyers didn't bother to find out the new address. How the hell they managed to get a judgement when the accused didn't even know they'd been accused of anything I've no idea.

Re:The really scary part is...

[Nursie]

They've won a few cases.

Well, let me put that a little more realistically. The defendant didn't even bother to turn up so they got a default judgement in a few cases.
And they crowed about a record £16000 award for their dumb pinball game a little while ago. Thing is, the lady they won that judgement against had not only not showed up in court, and not replied to any of their letters, but had actually moved house between the alleged infringement and the date the letters were sent. She was never even informed there was action against her. So the ruling isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Their damage calculations are laughable too. We don't really have punitive damaged in the UK. You might be able to get them laughed out of court by saying "yes, I downloaded over a torrent network. They sell for £5, I downloaded one copy and (as a good torrent citizen) uploaded 110%, meaning their damages are exactly £10.50."

I don't know exactly what would happen then, but usually that sort of thing should be in the small claims court, not the grown-up court, and legal expenses wouldn't be covered in the judgement there.

At that amount it's a waste of the court's time.

Re:The really scary part is...

[sm62704]

'course, it'll still be pricey as hell, etc.

Not if you win; in the UK the loser pays.

Sir Alan Sugar should be arrested at once!

[Joce640k]

Alan Sugar got rich by making a HiFi with twin cassette units. If you didn't have one yourself, you knew somebody who did. Suddenly *everybody* could copy tapes easily (and at double speed!)

Home taping was rampant. I knew people with tens of thousands of tapes in their room.

The record business didn't die then, in fact their boom years came long afterwards.

How come Alan Sugar got a knighthood but these days we're throwing away all due process over the exact same "crime".

Game, set, match...

[harrie_o]

Look people, its all over. Why persist in trading copyrighted materials using Bit-torrent?

To find anyone who is using bt to get an illegal file is like shooting-fish-in-a-barrel. Its not rocket science. To get a file sharer's name all any corporation has to do is:

1) attempt to download the file (just a tiny bit).

2) snap the list of peers that have 100-percent (cut and paste) and note the time in GMT (UTC).

3) end the download before you got anything

4) using ping -a to lookup the name of the computer at that ip address (gets the ISP, too its just that simple).

5) write letter to ISP demanding its logs of what customer was on that IP address at that time.

The ISP then sends it letter and its game, set, match. Just give it up. Use bt for your own creative content and what (like youtube) could be considered fair use.

Re:Game, set, match...

[plasmacutter]

that's been going on in the US for a decade, the p2p use continues to rise, the risk of being sued continues to diminish.

Game, set, match all right. The people win.

in the basement

[catbertscousin]

The new address was in a locked file cabinet in a disused bathroom in the basement with a sign on the door that said "Beware of the leopard".

Just common sense

[frovingslosh]

It shouldn't even be an issue of a lack of research skills, it should just be common sense in an HTML medium that one would include a link in such a serious statement. Yea, Google comes up pretty dry unless you find the magic words to key on, but if you are doing web journalism, as /. claims they are doing, (as well as calling the people who somewhat arbitrarily pick stories to be "editors"), then it's not unreasonable to set an expectation that links would be provided in such statements. I'm as peeved about this as I am when Associated Press or Reuters run a story on the world's ugliest dog, or fattest cat, or how much Rielle Hunter's baby looks like John Edwards, without actually showing a photo of the subject. Perhaps more peeved, because (not to excuse the others) Slashdot is exclusively web based and should be more technical and should know better.