Slashdot Mirror
UK ISPs Could Be Forced To Block Or Restrict P2P
MJackson writes "The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has published a draft set of proposals for tackling illegal broadband file sharing (P2P) downloads by persistent infringers, among other things. The proposals form part of a discussion piece concerning the role that a UK Digital Rights Agency (DRA) could play. UK Internet Providers will already be required to warn those suspected of such activity and collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers, though they could soon be asked to go even further. The new discussion paper, while not going into much detail, has proposed two potential example solutions to the problem. UK ISPs could employ protocol blocking or bandwidth restrictions in relation to persistent infringers. In other words, P2P services could be blocked, or suspected users might find their service speeds seriously restricted."
Why is there such a big push to punish infringers outside the court system?
How many other types of civil crimes get treated the same way?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
We can encrypt bit-torrent files so they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between P2P to normal traffic. Sheesh.
This was bound to happen sooner or later.
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
This sort of thing isn't unreasonable if the people it hits are actually breaking the law. If the law is unreasonable, then getting the authorities to enforce that law uniformly and against everyone breaking it will make those authorities very unpopular and show the law to be flawed. Such laws rarely last much beyond the following election. On the other hand, if the law is reasonable, then impartially punishing those who break it is also reasonable. Personally, I don't have much sympathy for freeloaders.
Of course, we know that governments always follow due process in these cases, provide timely hearings where someone accused has an opportunity to defend themselves, and provide fair compensation if they screw up and an innocent party is damaged as a result, so there's really nothing to worry about.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
... the Featured Artists Coalition, which consists of 140 of the UK's biggest music stars, voted recently on the issue of illegal downloading, and "most of the artists had voted against supporting any move towards criminally prosecuting ordinary members of the public for illegally downloaded music."
Since we keep getting told to think about the artists, why is no-one listening to what they're saying?
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
...between downloading from a P2P network and downloading from something considered more legit (like Itunes) when it's presented as DRM free? At it's very best, all it amounts to is downloading the exact same thing from a different server...especially when it's downloaded for free. All 'legit' services do give 'free' DRM free downloads. It has been said by the RIAA that "downloading is illegal and immoral". Yet, downloading from Itunes is never questioned. Why is it that when someone downloads from P2P, they are "freeloaders" but when it's a DRM free 'free' download...everything is ok? One aspect of this that does bother me is that you cannot pull up ANYTHING from the web that is NOT downloaded (in some way). The entire internet is based on the concept of "copying" things, from one computer to another. In all the arguments surrounding this issue, I have yet to hear any logical reason that justifies the actions of the recording industry on any real technical level.
when I do DL something, it is because I seek it out using google.
"nameOfBand"+"nameOfRecord"+download, inurl:blogspot
gets me a hit on someone who has a blog that features the music I want and has a link to the music on rapidshare or some other online file repository system.
There is nothing "peer to peer" about it at all.
These links will break, but are often replaced by other links. The download is fast, but not superfast, simply "fast enough".
The whole P2P thing is so 2001. So yesterday. So "who cares? I've moved on from there..."
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
That really sucks.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
...that's what thumb-drives and portable hard drives are for...oh wait I forgot on /. no one has friends, your all screwed!
Because doing it this way bypasses peoples legal rights and opens the door to other easy abuses down the road.
No legal restriction to having an ISP throttle you for any reason, as long as its in the contract.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So what? Because of the over-selling I only get half of my 20Mbps now!
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Don't visit the country which contributed the most to world problems: Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, and India.
P.S. God Save The Queen.
Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout
When I first read the title, it made it seem like the UK was going to have ISPs just block all P2P traffic, in my mind a possibility considering the UK's position on internet snooping and censorship combined with the fact that smaller networks (like universities) routinely block all P2P traffic, legal or otherwise.
I don't agree with the punishments being handed out by the ISPs, but what if the restriction was part of a court-imposed penalty? Perhaps lawyers could argue to get the P2P blocking imposed in exchange for dropping some stiff financial penalties? I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure those filing the suits would want the P2P blocking on top of everything else, but there could be a potential less-negative thing out of this if it is used instead of other penalties. I don't agree with internet restriction, especially with how the UK is handling it, but if someone IS violating copyright using P2P and it is shown to be such in court, I don't see a problem with this.
Douglas Whitaker
Yeah, let's block TCP and UDP, problem solved. Sighface.
I am already a victim of this, my ISP is restricting my download speeds to 100Kb/s down and 180kb/s up, and I am paying for broadband speeds. Who is the criminal, the ISP me thinks...
illegal broadband file sharing (P2P)
P2P is not synonymous with illegal file sharing.
Don't repeat the MAFIAA's propaganda.
Why is the Government intervention here always so terrible? Can't we elect a decent technology minster to back net neutrality and stop censorship, not pander to corporate interests. This is why we should elect the cabinet not the party.
Again the main point is lost on these folks. File sharing in and of itself is not illegal, nor imoral. Its when copyrighted material is shared that an illegal act is performed. Restricting or blocking P2P file sharing would be punishing the inocent along with the guilty. Yes, there are legitimate uses for P2P file sharing and the use of torents. Such as the distribution of and/or sharing of one's own copyrighted material, or material that is legal to share.
Find a way to catch and punish the criminals without treating everyone as a criminal, pr just drop it!
Just crypt all your traffic and you'll be safe!
Shitty laws like this will only give a rise to anonymous P2P-networks like Freenet (freenetproject.org). Freenet is much more harder to block at ISP level and ensures anonymity of both downloaders and uploaders. The warez,mp3,movies etc trading will continue there.
goodluckwiththat
I will sue the ass off them.
I was sold an Internet connection, not a "Nearly the Whole Internet, but not X, Y and Z"
I'm getting a bit pissed off with this bullshit.
..is that why those oriental-looking chaps selling bootleg dvds were high-fiving each other?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
We are all a bunch of hypocrites. Of course I strongly disapprove of blocking P2P or throttling. It may become a big problem. However it is hypocritical to pretend that P2P is used mostly for legal purposes.
Say what you like, but downloading music and movies for free is still theft, no matter how you look at it. So, you don't approve of the current content owners' distribution policies, you think that CDs are overpriced, and that DRM sucks, and that everything should be available cheaply and conveniently online. I completely, 100% agree. However this is no excuse for stealing. Don't like the policies - don't use the product. End of story. Anything else is simply unethical.
Come on people, it is unethical. If I try to sell you a piece of crap for $1000 you are not obliged to buy it, but you don't have the right to steal it either.
Let's face it, illegal downloading of movies and songs is really rampant. I have more than a few acquaintances in Europe who have collections of many thousands songs, movies (and software packages), without having _EVER_ bought a single one. They will never buy a CD or a movie, for any price, while they can download it for free. They never go to the cinema either because they download all new movies. They act as if they are entitled to this product for free, just because they consider it too expensive or too inconvenient to buy. Personally I find that disgusting (even though I agree with the expensive and inconvenient part).
Distribution of pirated software is a subject that I find close to my heart. It takes a _lot of_ money to develop software. Perhaps not everybody realizes it, but programmers need to pay rent and eat. So do musicians and movie makers.
I'm from the UK, I make music, and I'm launching my first album soon, so this is important stuff for me.
My business model will be: legal torrenting to gain exposure, iTunes sales as an option for those who will either pay for the convenience or want to throw me a tip, a donate button for much the same reasons, and if I think I've generated the fan base to support it, a limited run deluxe physical CD package for people (like me) who like to own a physical product.
What the UK Government is proposing starts off by saying in the first paragraph that they want to "create an environment in which the creation of digital content is rewarded and innovation is encouraged", but then they immediately do a 180 degree flip and recommend creating a semi-governmental RIAA sock-puppet that has a legal right to kick people off P2P without trial, which neatly kills off my business model at the first step.
The reality is that this has nothing to do with fairness or encouraging innovation, it's all about trying to shore up the failing RIAA business model. I will make formal comments to this effect, but I the whole tone of the report suggests they've already had their minds made up by the RIAA lobby, as indicated by their unquestioning parroting of the 'all piracy is bad' RIAA line instead of looking at the benefits to the consumer of trying before they buy, and of exposing consumers to artists they would never have encountered without exploring P2P torrent sites.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
First of all, it's not going to help. How long until P2P programs are tunnelled over HTTP or SSH? And what are they going to do, packet inspect all HTTP connections? You gotta be kidding me...
Second: the users want to trade music and videos, the artists want the users to do it. Only the distributors of music, ripe with the blood of the artists and the users whom the sucked the life from with their failing business model will be satisfied. Well, I for one, hope that they all fail, go bankrupt, and somehow end up in a PMITA prison for the rest of their miserable lives. If Art has ever seen a thief, he surely was working for a record label.
My Stack Overflow user
uk users have go back to ftp and snailmail
Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
What is deeply concerning is the way the MafRIAA's of the world are as highly organised as they are. Keeping my tin foil hat off, the same kind of push for legislative change is popping up in many countries just reccently, to disconnect infringing users on accusation being the common theme. In some cases the legislation is slipping through in the dead of night, in the case of New Zealand's section 92A. Which has now thankfully as good as dead in the water.
So they tried it on and it didn't work, in about 4-5 different countries, the ones where it's easier to push through legislation. This is typical behavior of lobbyists, cavalier lets-see-what-we-can-get-away-with attitude, if it doesn't work they back it off a little, and try again with something less heavy - the process softens up the lawmakers and public's response. So is this the new strategy? Throttle instead of disconnect? Disturbingly, this is one ISPs may be much more inclined to support.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
I say we just take their 'net away! Shit, if we're spinning down into another damn dark age already let's just get the fuck down with it and DDoS every fuckin' corporation from top to bottom.
ISPs collect private user data? Just nuke them from orbit.
The day they make the entire world villains should be the day they regret doing it.
I saw warez from the pre Internet era, all that has changed in all this years is that it has become more easier to obtain.
Back then for 0-day you had to be close to the underground, now it's all available with one anonymous click.
The only way to prevent it's on-line checking, but you can't enforce it for off-line experience, you just can't.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
The ISP model of Internet connectivity amounts to an institutionalised single point of failure. It's all very well to say that the Internet will just route around it, but in the current architecture we're using this is very hard. We can hold off the thumbscrews for a while using protocol tunneling, encryption and such measures, but not forever and in the meantime the general standard web Internet experience will get worse and worse as well due to the side effects the blocks will undoubtedly have. Since we can't seem to vote for politicians who can regulate the Internet sensibly, I think the only real long term solution is to find a way make sure that every device, mobile or stationary, be it laptop, desktop, phone, radio, television, speaker, printer, ... is wireless enabled and can act as a kind of minirouter. Of course governments will want to forbid this, but I think to enforce such bans would require measures so draconian that no politician would dare.
Yeah good luck with that!
I really fail to see the issue here. If you're caught red-handed engaged in copyright infringement, I see nothing wrong with ISPs throttling your bandwidth and access in relation to certain protocols (after a few warnings, of course). The legitimate uses of P2P technology would be unaffected.
As for due process, the high degree of entanglement between government and the telecom industry (especially with Ofcom) would probably open up any of these policies to judicial review as any decision by a minister would.
Also, regardless of what you think about Labour, though they've expanded the prerogative of the police to act, they've also expanded judicial oversight of such powers. I doubt this will be any different.
"Illegal broadband file sharing (P2P)"? Which is to say, "P2P" is an abbreviation used to refer to something illegal, I suppose.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Thank God someone can see through the arguments of those that demand they are entitled to freely copy.
the Crown will be banning beans and cabbage in an effort to combat global warming. Infringers will be summarily dealt with by means of having their anus sewn shut. One MP was quoted as saying, "We can't take every case to court, as it would clog the justice system for DECADES! We MUST stop flatulance now, by whatever means!"
Stay tuned for more news.......
dirty whores
Way to undermine an argument.
Why is it these organisations so strongly want to stop the development of new technologies to the point that a powerful content delivery system should be blocked?
File sharing is not illegal. The distributing of copy-righted material is. Why are so many interest groups making the mistake. Its like making email illegal because it is used for scams. I also have this beef with "piracy". Downloading a file is not anywhere close to murdering and plundering on the high seas!
start encrypting my p2p traffic and put in on :80?
if this gets thru then Icelands economy is screwed.
CCP HQ is in Iceland, but the Servers are in UK. If this gets thru then their ISP connector might impose restrictions on bittorrent traffic...
Since bittorrent is used to transmit their entire program, updates, etc then their entire companies profit will dissapear overnight (well in one month when everyone ragequits!...
A BAD SIGN!