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!
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.
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.
Since we keep getting told to think about the artists, why is no-one listening to what they're saying?
Because most of the artists in question willingly and quickly signed away the right to have a say on the matter when their first contract was placed infront of them.
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 ----
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
Willingly? Well more of an choice of signing away your creative soule or starving to death (or, oh no, get a "real" job) due to not being able to crack the payola wall of the promoting media which funny enaugh the RIAA put up in the first place to keep out the independant artists.
illegal broadband file sharing (P2P)
P2P is not synonymous with illegal file sharing.
Don't repeat the MAFIAA's propaganda.
- Are you connecting to a number of IP addresses which are known to be in blocks allocated to domestic DSL/Cable connections? This is made particularly easy when most ISPs around the world set up PTR records like 123.123.123.123.domestic.dsl.customer.london.isp.com.
- Are you sending a small amount of traffic upstream to a small number of servers and receiving much more back?
- Is the connection kept open for a significant length of time (more than a few minutes)?
Right, so I hope these ISPs don't like customers who play online games.
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.