Slashdot Mirror


UK ISPs Near Agreement On Illegal File Sharing

ISPreview UK writes "UK Music's chief executive, Feargal Sharkey, claims that progress has been made on a deal between the music industry and broadband ISPs to tackle illegal file sharing. The comments came during yesterday's annual Internet Service Providers' Association conference in Eversheds, with an ISPA spokesman confirming that 'some kind of agreement between rightholders and ISPs can be reached,' adding, 'everyone wants to work together to make legal online models work.' The news follows July's crucial Memorandum of Understanding agreement between copyright holders and six of the UK's largest ISPs, which account for roughly 90% of the country's broadband market. The initial agreement approved a principal of sending warning letters to customers who have been accused of downloading illegal music or movies."

97 comments

  1. No problem. by theaveng · · Score: 4, Funny

    I already downloaded the Billboard Hot 100 for every year from the 1930s to 2007. I'm all set.

    As for the newer stuff, they won't see a single dime from my pocket. I think I will survive just fine if I never-again hear Britney's or Rihanna's voices.

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    1. Re:No problem. by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      1930s??? WHAT are you?

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:No problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A vampire obviously!

    3. Re:No problem. by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I already downloaded the Billboard Hot 100 for every year from the 1930s to 2007. I'm all set.

      As for the newer stuff, they won't see a single dime from my pocket. I think I will survive just fine if I never-again hear Britney's or Rihanna's voices.

      If only unauthorized copying really were stealing. Then you could burn all those songs on a few DVDs, nuke them from orbit (only way to be sure), and rid us of them for good. If only...

    4. Re:No problem. by DRBivens · · Score: 1

      1930s??? WHAT are you?

      OLD--as am I...

      --
      You have the right to remain silent. If you don't, anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.
    5. Re:No problem. by theaveng · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A fan of old movies and old music from the pre-WW2 era.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    6. Re:No problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, moron. Remember posting this?

      Notice how absolutely nothing even remotely resembling that happened? At all?

      You need to admit that you know absolutely nothing about the USA or anything that has ever happened in it. Because every time you act as though you do, you prove yourself to be a liar and an idiot.

    7. Re:No problem. by freedom_india · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I did and i also lost a bet on it.
      EUR 100.
      I was paranoid and obviously thought that Rove or Bush would be brilliant like Stalin,
      By bad.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    8. Re:No problem. by Ponyegg · · Score: 1

      Or for that matter, Feargal Sharkey's!

  2. In the news today by sentientbeing · · Score: 2, Funny

    In the news today 80s popster Feargal Sharkey was complaining of the dearth of legal pay-for-download music companies:

    "A good Mart these days is hard to find" he sang

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    1. Re:In the news today by juiceboxfan · · Score: 2, Funny

      In the news today 80s popster Feargal Sharkey was complaining of the dearth of legal pay-for-download music companies:

      "A good Mart these days is hard to find" he sang

      Yes, I'm concerned by the political undertones of this;-)

  3. Illegal by Threni · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are they going to be spending much of my - as a customer - money on lawyers, differentiating between illegal downloads of current releases, and, say, rips of long out of print vinyl such as the Avant Garde Project (www.avantgardeproject.org) ? I rather imagine they'll just be trying to stop anyone who is bypassing the cosy tv/mp3/movie deals they've done with studios, broadcasters and publishers.

    Some sort of blanket encryption on *everything* sent from/received by people's PCs is sorely needed. Perhaps if every PC were running TOR (or something functionally very similar) there would be less of a problem here.

    1. Re:Illegal by theaveng · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Atari, Activision, Sega, and Nintendo can sue gamers for distributing "out of print" 8-bit games from the 70s and 80s, I'm sure RIAA will just-as-happily sue you for copying out-of-print records. Reason: Even out-of-print stuff is still copyrighted. It's not fair but that's the way it works.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Illegal by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a facet of copyright they need to fix. If you publish something, then take it out of print, you lose your copyright. Charging usurious fees for a print should also be considered "out of print" (like more than 30% of the initial run's street price, not MSRP:)

      And yes, this would directly remove most Disney works from copyrighted status, as this is their ploy to create artificial scarcity and increase demand for their products.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Illegal by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      And given that I received legal downlaod offers from Atari for two games I already bought and registered and surprisingly none for any of their other games, I'm kinda expecting these morons to unleash their lawyers on me soon.

    4. Re:Illegal by evilandi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      spending much of my - as a customer - money on lawyers

      I can absolutely guarantee that they won't spend a penny on lawyers, mate. They'll spend it on solicitors and barristers.

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    5. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some sort of blanket encryption on *everything* sent from/received by people's PCs is sorely needed. Perhaps if every PC were running TOR (or something functionally very similar) there would be less of a problem here.

      You mean like, um, https?

    6. Re:Illegal by TriezGamer · · Score: 2

      And what of an individual who copyrights something without intent to ever distribute? Should they no longer retain the rights to what they created?

      I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but there needs to be considerations.

    7. Re:Illegal by Threni · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that um https covers p2p, voip, ftp, gaming, irc,database access etc etc does it? Nor does its use hinder traffic analysis.

    8. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a facet of copyright they need to fix. If you publish something, then take it out of print, you lose your copyright. Charging usurious fees for a print should also be considered "out of print" (like more than 30% of the initial run's street price, not MSRP:)

      And yes, this would directly remove most Disney works from copyrighted status, as this is their ploy to create artificial scarcity and increase demand for their products.

      While I agree we need copyright reform, this is not a good solution.
      First of all, you would immediately lose your copyright upon getting it, unless you had already put in in print before getting the copyright, which would put it into the public domain so your copyright wouldn't count anyhow.
      Even if you ignore that situation, let's say I write a book, and publisher A prints 100 copies. They don't want to print more, so I look for another publisher to print at a cheaper rate. Should I lose my copyright just because I'm shopping for a new distributer? I don't think that is fair at all.

    9. Re:Illegal by billcopc · · Score: 1

      If there is no intent to distribute, then there is no intent to profit from it, is there ? Copyright becomes moot.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    10. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a time limit of say 10 years. If you can't get a publisher to print it, maybe it's not worth printing and should be part of the public domain.

    11. Re:Illegal by Duradin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the work isn't distributed you wouldn't need a temporary monopoly on the distribution of the work.

      Copyright was intended to provide a temporary benefit to people who distribute things so that they _would_ distribute things.

    12. Re:Illegal by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Forgot to add a reasonable timeline.... say 1-2 years after going into print.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  4. Somewhat dependant on comptency.. by PhilJC · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTA: although some ISPs have tested warning letters with suspected customers.

    I would have thought the first steps in correctly policing illegal filesharing was firstly to have a firm grip on who exactly your customers are..

    And while I'm being pedantic:

    The initial agreement approved a principal of sending warning letters to customers who have been accused of downloading illegal music or movies

    And who's doing the accusing? the ISP or the music industry? Cos if I was the music industry I'd just accuse everyone in the UK three times and hey presto the UK is offline.

    1. Re:Somewhat dependant on comptency.. by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      At least one ISP sends letters naming the accusor as "a third party monitoring service". So not at all shady then.

    2. Re:Somewhat dependant on comptency.. by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      And who's doing the accusing? the ISP or the music industry? Cos if I was the music industry I'd just accuse everyone in the UK three times and hey presto the UK is offline.

      Careful, though. If you say their name three times whilst looking in a mirror, they'll pop out and sue you.

    3. Re:Somewhat dependant on comptency.. by billcopc · · Score: 1

      A third party can be owned by the same people, and paid from the same money. It just operates under a different name.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    4. Re:Somewhat dependant on comptency.. by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Careful, though. If you say their name three times whilst looking in a mirror, they'll pop out and sue you.

      Wouldn't that only be a concern if the accuser's name was Hastur...

      Hastur...

      Hastur?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  5. Nothing new in this story. by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

    Sharkey and those from the ISP community seemed optimistic that "some kind of agreement between rightholders and ISPs can be reached."

    Unless Feargal Sharkey's seeming optimism is somehow newsworthy now that THE ELECTION (tm) is finally over.

    --
    Squirrel!
    1. Re:Nothing new in this story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one will be the new US "Copyright Czar" ? Hilary Rozen, or Dan Glickman ? Place your bets.
      Hollywood and the media is as important to Barack Obama as oil to Bush. He *is* going to look
      out for them.

  6. priorities by senorpoco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if half the resources were put into combating online identity theft, pornography or malicious hacking, these problems could be stamped out.

    1. Re:priorities by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > if half the resources were put into combating online identity theft, pornography or malicious hacking, these problems could be stamped out.

      How exactly is pornography a problem?

    2. Re:priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You want yo ban pr0n?

      You insensitive clod!

    3. Re:priorities by senorpoco · · Score: 1

      i meant child pornography, oops

    4. Re:priorities by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 4, Funny

      > if half the resources were put into combating online identity theft, pornography or malicious hacking, these problems could be stamped out.

      How exactly is pornography a problem?

      GP was refering to the problem of pornography theft.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    5. Re:priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol'd. Actually the porn industry is unusually laid back about blatant infringement by various flash streaming sites, rapidshare et al, pureTnA etc. Perhaps they figure that in the long run it's free and very effective viral advertising, gets them customers and isn't really worth the effort of fighting.

    6. Re:priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps they're just too busy shagging...

    7. Re:priorities by dwandy · · Score: 2, Funny

      You want yo ban pr0n?

      typing with one hand again I see...

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    8. Re:priorities by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Actually a bunch of the web-based porn pros seed their own content on these sites. It's been standard practice to promote web sites with free content (TGPs and whatnot), the torrent craze is just another way to get your brand out there.

      Bangbros and others would be nowhere if it weren't for P2P. Today they're household names (well, among porn consumers).

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  7. Having and Eating by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The BPI and the various other rights groups in the UK want to have their cake and eat it. They want ISPs to police their users for illegal downloads, send out warnings & then cut them off completely AND they want them to pay for all the costs of doing so in addition to the potential lost income from cutting off the users.

    Understandably the ISPs aren't overly happy about this arrangement, which is why I'd be very surprised if this was anything more than vague agreement of "Yes, we should probably do something about all those people paying us large monthly fees to download your music illegally".

    1. Re:Having and Eating by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 1

      Seems like a perfectly natural response to me. If you had a cake, wouldn't you want to eat it too?

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    2. Re:Having and Eating by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      These music companies should get a clue. They've been overcharging for music for decades. They should just be happy that they were able to rip us off for so long and and retire. They can't stop the invisible hand of economics. The supply of an MP3 file is infinite, which means price will approach zero. They must find another way to make money.

    3. Re:Having and Eating by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Informative

      If people would just get these sayings right, there would be less confusion.

      Originally, it was "eat your cake and have it too", which basically means you want to get the value of the cake (by eating it) and yet still keep it as "savings". As always, Wikipedia gets the details right.

    4. Re:Having and Eating by duguk · · Score: 1

      If I've already eaten it, how can I still have it?

  8. But Feargal...! by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    Downloading music is just teenagers getting their kicks. There was a time you knew something about that, apparently. A good heart really *is* hard to find.

  9. Re:why the hell by theaveng · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Lucky us he doesn't have a supermajority (60+ votes) in the Senate, otherwise the Democrats would be unstoppable, and we'd soon be as socialist as China.

    Or maybe Australia (with a firewall, "breath test" to search for porn addicts, filtering of content, and so on).

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  10. 6 ISPs Involved by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Informative

    Interesting to view the 6 ISPs involved - BT, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali, Carphone Warehouse (TalkTalk, AOL) and BSkyB - on this independent UK ISP ratings site

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:6 ISPs Involved by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The large ISPs in the UK do tend to suck. It seems the bigger they get the less they care about individual customers.

    2. Re:6 ISPs Involved by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Hang-on, aren't at least half of those also the ISPs who want to spy on their users with Phorm? I've seen BT and Virgin mentioned, I'm not sure about Orange and Tiscali, and I'm fairly sure I've seen Carphone Warehouse mentioned but I can't remember whether they were saying "we won't do it" or "it'll always be opt-in".

    3. Re:6 ISPs Involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly anyone who uses any of these cretins deserves everything they get. They really do.

    4. Re:6 ISPs Involved by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      Ta.

      --
      Squirrel!
    5. Re:6 ISPs Involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:6 ISPs Involved by sjwest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Somehow when this starts working i can see a sudden enhanced retarded-ness that only a big isp can engage once they realise that there losing clients by the boat load.

      I was thinking about a mobile internet 3g thing from orange but it seems that choice is made and i now cannot buy from them now. Not to worry though Im sure they wont mind.

    7. Re:6 ISPs Involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've previously used two of the six and am currently a customer of a third; frankly if you intend to download heavily you'd be better off with two tin cans and a piece of string.

  11. Re:why the hell by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shall we state it again for prosperity?

    America != World.

    No matter how much you want to think so. How this relates to a story about **UK** ISP's, I don't know. However, if you wish to turn Slashdot into Slashdot World Series (i.e. only America actually contributes - my apologies... Wiki says that there is one Canadian team too...), then feel free to keep whinging. Or just read the story at the top of the front page about the election that, with its sister postings over the last few days, has made me remove "News" from my topic lists. Do British people shove comments on random pages when a new Prime Minister is elected? No. Why not? Because it would annoy the Americans and others who have precisely zero interest in such things.

  12. Just so long as... by bhunachchicken · · Score: 0

    ... they don't do anything really annoying like have a mandatory "music and movie tax" on all broadband connections.

    For someone like me, that happily pays for movie and music that I enjoy, I wouldn't want to be helping to line the pockets of Leona Lewis, Leon Jackson, and all the other shit that is so prominent in the charts right now.

    1. Re:Just so long as... by evilandi · · Score: 2, Informative

      don't do anything really annoying like have a mandatory "music and movie tax" on all broadband connections.

      You may be joking, but there are proposals to change the TV licence fee to do exactly that.

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    2. Re:Just so long as... by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      And, if they enact such a thing, it's only a problem for people who never download any kind of movies or music.

      For everyone else, it's a win, since paying that tax means you've paid the copyright holder for the content, and you can then download it from anywhere you want. As long as the ISPs don't shut down P2P, such a tax is a good deal for music buyers.

      I'm sure the media companies will argue that such a tax doesn't allow you to download anything you want, but if it ever comes to a lawsuit, I suspect that a jury would think otherwise.

    3. Re:Just so long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in a British public library and the prs people have recently been sending letters round the libraries demanding money for borrowers listening to music on public computers...

      They claim we are "broadcasting" music...

  13. torrent + encryption by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    How will the ISPs know that torrent file being downloaded is an mp3 if the line is encrypted?
    Lets say I use some sort of inherent tool inside of limewire(in theory for now) which change the file enough that it can not be recognized as a legitimate mp3, only a .lol file extension.... this in turn avoids detection....unless they will be pouring 100 million dollars into R&D for catching files hidden inside images...I mean uhhhhh wait.....I heard this story before.....deja vu!

    1. Re:torrent + encryption by carlvlad · · Score: 0

      Hardware based deep packet inspection. Here in Malaysia the current monopoly, government linked company (TMnet) not only over sells broadband subscriptions, but throttles all P2P protocols by using Cisco hardware. If I recall correctly there was an article on /. about 80Gbps deep packet inspection hardware, around the Olympics me think.

  14. Ob: by ciderVisor · · Score: 4, Funny

    The cake is a lie.

    --
    Squirrel!
    1. Re:Ob: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you did not complete Portal then?

      The cake is real.

  15. What *is* the *Actual* Process? by mrpacmanjel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So how is this actually enforced?

    As I currently understand it:

    1) "Lawyer" firms trawl P2P traffic and compile list of "illegal" file sharers and thier details (e.g.IP addresses, time/dates, torrent files)

    2) Contact ISP, handover "evidence" of illegal activity, ISP monitors user's activity and examines previous usage logs.

    3) If activity is "confirmed" then "warning" letter is issued to user.

    4) ISP continues to monitor user's activity and "liase" with "lawyer" firm.

    5) If user's activity ~= "illegal" then possibly issue further letters and/or throttle user's bandwidth.

    I'm tempted to type "6)....Profit!" :)

    What if the user contests the evidence?
    What if a mistake was made identifying the user?
    Will it entail an expensive legal battle to prove innocence (I thought *guilt* had to be proven)?

    This raises many questions and I doubt this is a workable solution.

    If it is only P2P traffic that is monitored then I will not be to concerned at the moment. There are many other ways illegal content can be obtained and quite frankly let them monitor P2P.
    It will make "lawyers" feel they are doing their job, Copyright owners will feel "justice" is served, ISPs keep our Orwellian Govt of their backs and smart users will find alternatives.

    Business as usual.

    I'm more worried that the Govt want a central database of email and internet usage rather something short-sighted like this.

    As usual the Govt and content holders are one step behind the internet generation and will continue to stumble through all this "new-fangled" technology.

    1. Re:What *is* the *Actual* Process? by evilandi · · Score: 1

      It'd be monumentally unwise for the UK music industry to hire "lawyer" firms to trawl UK broadband providers. That'd breach the European Union data protection laws right away, using American legal firms to examine British data.

      Did you mean "solicitor" firms?

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    2. Re:What *is* the *Actual* Process? by mrpacmanjel · · Score: 1

      I used "lawyer" (in quotes) because I couldn't remember how to spell "solicitor" :)

    3. Re:What *is* the *Actual* Process? by squizzar · · Score: 1

      I'm curious too, but more along the lines of:
      - If I get torrent files over SSL or similar
      - And only access trackers via encrypted methods
      - And use RC4 encryption on the transfers (to obscure the content)

      How are they going to prove I downloaded anything. Even if they manage to show you downloaded a torrent, how can they correlate that to actual data being downloaded.

      The chain of evidence for this sort of thing seems to be incredibly weak.

    4. Re:What *is* the *Actual* Process? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      By having a peer on that torrent that downloads small portions of the file to verify.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:What *is* the *Actual* Process? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      3) If activity is "confirmed" then "warning" letter is issued to user.

      What if the user contests the evidence?
      What if a mistake was made identifying the user?
      Will it entail an expensive legal battle to prove innocence (I thought *guilt* had to be proven)?

      The moment they threaten to stop delivering the service your contract entitles you to, sue them for breach of contract.

      Yes, it will entail an expensive legal battle, and as I understand law, contract law is a civil matter so you need the evidence to lean in your favor. If there's no admissible evidence at all from the ISP side, and you can show the letter from the ISP, I think you'd win. Standard rules for custody of evidence applies.

      Courts have in the past accepted log files as evidence. I tried to petition them to also accept forged signatures, but they wouldn't listen to me.

      IANAL, TINLA.

  16. Listen Fergal, I'm only going to say this once! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STOP RIPPING US OFF AND RELEASE THE MATERIAL WE ACTUALLY WANT TO BUY AND HEAR!!

    Got it?

    As a metal fan I want access to the music I like. I want noise or as my wife calls it, Pack-of-Dogs-Music! I do not want to buy Coldplank or Girls Ar-Crap,

    The niche music fans in this world spend shit-loads of money, because we can only get our stuff on CDs or Vynyl from specialist places. Mr Major Label Exec you do realise that niche music, like rock and metal out-sells your pop-pap in orders of magnitude that would give your accountant wet dreams for a year?

    Our money is waiting for you, but you're not interested, you'd rather push cack like the "Pizza Chefs" or the latest claptrap from the X-Factor, it's your loss. Give us a call when you grow up!

  17. Libel or defamation? by anexium · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you're sent one of these letters that alleges that you've been 'pirating' film/music/whatever but you haven't been trading/downloading in anything copyrighted - and therefore innocent against these allegations - is there not a case for bringing some kind of libel or defamation action against your ISP, the lawyers and the BPI?

    1. Re:Libel or defamation? by IBBoard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doubtful, because they almost certainly won't publish the list of who they sent letters to and so they won't have done anything to impact your reputation. I'd imagine that'd be one thing that Legal were keeping a close eye on (as well as how to do it to reduce their bandwidth while not getting caught in any other legal issues).

    2. Re:Libel or defamation? by FinchWorld · · Score: 1

      What if its a shared flat/house, or it goes to the wrong address, or somehow gets openned by anyone but the intended reciever? And does a libel case ever need anyone else to find out, if a company starts sending letters to you that are making blatent lies about yourself I'd say its libel wether anyone else sees it or not.

      --
      "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
    3. Re:Libel or defamation? by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      It depends where the court falls on the legal definition. The dictionary definition is unclear, but half of them state publication (which a single letter isn't)

      a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

      (From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel with my emphasis)

      Defamation is the generic term for libel and slander, one of which is written and one of which is spoken. Also, while it wouldn't be applicable in the UK, the US courts apparently think that it must be published (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_ref-5). There is a similar statement about the English law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#England) but there's not citation to back it up.

      As for it going to a shared flat/house, that's your fault for letting someone else open your mail. If it goes to the wrong address entirely then they are (I believe) breaking the law by opening your mail as it is not addressed to them, so again it isn't the ISP's fault.

    4. Re:Libel or defamation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're sent one of these letters that alleges that you've been 'pirating' film/music/whatever but you haven't been trading/downloading in anything copyrighted - and therefore innocent against these allegations - is there not a case for bringing some kind of libel or defamation action against your ISP, the lawyers and the BPI?

      Well the BPI/their lawyers will have made allegations against you to your ISP (a third party). If they are false then I'd say you'd just been libeled/slandered. £££££

  18. Or it could be... by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

    ...that the people who go to ISP rating sites tend to be the most upset with the performance of their ISP, not the ones who are most satisfied. If the same %age of users have gripes, then the largest ISP's are going to have the largest absolute numbers of complainers.

    Pure anecdotal evidence here, but I've been delighted with my Orange Livebox for about a year. Getting a consistent > 6Mbps download rate (on a '8Mbps' line) and get a second (free 24/7 VOIP) phone line, free international calls to 30 countries and free calls to Orange mobiles within the UK. Fantastic !

    --
    Squirrel!
    1. Re:Or it could be... by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      I just checked the list against your theory:

      ADSL24(#2 from the top of the list) received 922 votes with an average rating of 9.40
      Orange received 973 votes with an average rating of 4.05
      Sky Broadband received 1179 with an average rating of 7.43

      The list does show that Orange is crappier than most others on the list.

      --
      She made the willows dance
  19. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why the RIAA bothers to go after filesharers. Most of them will pay either very little or nothing at all for music, and most of them aren't swimming in cash? It seems awfully vindictive of them.

    Instead, they should focus their energy on selling content for a fair price, consumer-friendly terms, high quality tracks, and a good user interface, and a good search interface.

    The RIAA should give up on its outrageous fantasy of being paid for every single copy of every single music track ever produced, and do a better job of selling their products to people who want to pay.

    1. Re:Why bother? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      The RIAA should give up on its outrageous fantasy of being paid for every single copy of every single music track ever produced, and do a better job of selling their products to people who want to pay.

      I've probably averaged the purchase of two CDs a year for the past three years because I basically already have everything I want, and most new music isn't worth the money. So, the music industry have gotten about $1-2/month from me during that time.

      I would happily pay $10/month for access to something like iTunes but without DRM, even with download limits (say 100 tracks/month, with rollover). And, I'd probably pay that for the next 10 years without flinching. With that sort of system, the music industry would get at least five times the money from me as they do now. How can that not be better for them?

  20. The other 10% by homes32 · · Score: 1

    The news follows July's crucial Memorandum of Understanding agreement between copyright holders and six of the UK's largest ISPs, which account for roughly 90% of the country's broadband market.

    looks like the other 10% is going to be seeing an increase in business.

  21. While you're being pedantic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you can add 'principal' being used when 'principle' was meant.

  22. It doesn't address... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...the on purpose business model of price gouging and imposed by law artificial scarcity in order to keep "per unit" profits high, at a simply astoundingly way above what it costs level to make a copy, which is in essence near zero. Digital copies are our first human product from a "replicator" star trek type society/potential, one where wants are eliminated cheaply and easily. And so far, we-business and governmental laws "we"- utterly fail it. These sorts of artificial scarcity laws are a war on the future and war on the the universal use of technology.

  23. spying is against human rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I always thought that spying on/viewing of personal data is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights? Surely even ISP's can't just view packets for the sake of it?

    If you do receive one of the letters haven't you got a case to take the ISP's to court for snooping.

  24. There is no such thing as illegal music or movies by loufoque · · Score: 1

    Data cannot be illegal.
    It is distributing data which may be illegal or not, depending on the rights you hold upon the data. It is also illegal to receive data from an illegal distributer, since that makes you an accomplice.

    Depending on your country, you may also be able to distribute data in a limited way without acquiring distribution rights from the copyright holder. This is known as fair use.

    All systems that want to check whether someone is distributing some data illegally are necessarily doomed to have false positives, because you cannot check if the person is sending the data to his family, for example, which is within fair use in most countries.
    If you have acquired distribution rights, the system may also not know of it.

    So that kind of system will always be a bother since it will turn in a lot of false positives, even if it actually worked and was well-designed to actually care about people's rights.

  25. Re:why the hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moron.....

  26. The Music Industry is so happy... by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Music Industry is so happy that they could come to an 'agreement' with the ISPs.

    But they don't understand that the 20th-century business model of corporations 'owning' music recordings is outdated and irrelevant as we enter the 21st-century (there's always a 10-15 year lag between the calendar year and the consciousness awareness that things are different in the new century). Everyone has the ability to copy everything that the music industry 'owns' quick, discretely, and easily. Everyone has the ability to exchange these copies freely. This isn't going to change regardless of how much what's left of the 20th-century music industry clamps down on the exchange of what they have deluded themselves into believing is their 'property'.

        The best, the very best, that they can hope for is to lock up the music recordings of the 20th-century. Which turn a profit for them now, but won't when they are removed from circulation because they don't fit into 21st century business models and are forgotten. The music industry will, in 50 years, still 'own' the rights to control distribution of the Beatles and Brittany Spears. But by then that right will be as profitable and as relevant as the right to distribute 17th-century Bulgarian folk songs is today.

        If you don't like the music industry and their RIAA goons, then make your own music recordings (and musical events), and keep them hidden from all the 'cool' people who make their living off the music industry.

        The music industry is imprisoned by this idea that music consists of marketable individual disk units of audio recordings. Which they claim is form of property that they own. Music is an arrangement of repetitive audio patterns which are perceived by people as pleasant primarily according to their cultural training. Music is the one thing that can never be property. As the technology of the 21st century reduces the influence of audio disk recordings as the definer of music, the RIAA will become less of a burden as each year passes.

        So let them have what they want; let them think that they've won their war, and move on to other forms of cultural enlightenment through music.

        But, as you do, for Goodness sakes, don't tell anyone in the music industry about what you are doing.

  27. What *is* the *Actual* Process? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2) Contact ISP, handover "evidence" of illegal activity, ISP monitors user's activity and examines previous usage logs.

    How will ISPs monitor illegal activity if say it is all encrypted. I assume they will have to work in tandem with MediaSentry or whoever and match up their logs to nab infringers. So all our isps will be permanently partnering with the *AAs monitoring services. Nice

  28. Time to move on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it time we move past the whole "file sharing = crime" thing? Copyright is really just the legal reflection of a mechanism for controlling access to something. Imagine a grumpy old troll with his bridge across a raging river. People want to access the other side of the river. The troll controls access. The troll makes a business of charging people for that access. Then one day the river dries up. Suddenly anyone who cares to can simply walk across the dry riverbed any time they feel like it. What should we do about this situation? Should we have laws requiring people to continue to pay the troll regardless of how they cross the river? Or should we tell the troll to go find a new business model? Sure, the troll would undoubtedly experience significant pain in the process of reinventing his livelihood -- but is that a reason to force everyone else to continue paying him for something which no longer has any value?

  29. Feargal, sorry that I donwloaded "Teenage Kicks".. by porttikivi · · Score: 1

    Dear Feargal,

    I think "Teenage Kicks" by your band The Undertone is one of the best pop songs ever. I confess I have downloaded the best of The Undertones illegally. I also tried very hard to like your solo work (True, O'Neill brothers later stuff has also vanished from my playing lists).

    I am a fan of yours, but I am going to download your stuff illegally and, mark my words: there is nothing you can do about it.

    --
    Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi