Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK ISPs Could Be Forced To Block Or Restrict P2P

Posted by Soulskill on from the expanding-the-job-description dept.

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."

24 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get it by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:I don't get it by klingens · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Why is there such a big push to punish infringers outside the court system?

      Because there are so many infringers that the court system would be clogged for years with nothing else and the cost for the justice system not bearable.

    2. Re:I don't get it by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, when in the past has two extremely wealthy industries had their 'work' stolen by the unwashed masses before? How are they expected to keep having ginormous profits if they have to sue every Tom, Dick and Harry for copyright infringement?

      They have to protect their profits by getting the gov't to put us back under their thumb again.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:I don't get it by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a frightening prospect. The penalties are significant, but there's no due process of law.

      So why the push? I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with how easy it is to block things at the ISP level (whether workarounds exist, it's easy enough to block things in a way that you have to look for a workaround). It's just easier for the government to inflict the burden of enforcement upon ISPs that to deal with the problem through the courts. As the saying goes: "Out of sight, out of mind."

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    4. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ..how easy it is to block things at the ISP level..

      It's funny that they think they will be able to install some equipment and then all P2P is automagically blocked. There are plenty of brilliant people out there that will find a way to bypass this system. It's just like trying to take down torrent sites - take down 1 site and 3 more will pop up somewhere else.

    5. Re:I don't get it by BSAtHome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, the sheer number of "infringers" means that there is a demand for something that is not satisfied by the normal market. So, either you can beat down on the "infringers" by any means, or you try to make them part of the regular market. You already know where the profit would be.

      The traditional view of "property" and "limited monopoly" is turned upside down with the commoditization of communication. If you cannot control the distribution channel, then all attempts on artificial scarcity will be in vein too. The only sustainable way out is to rethink the way we see creation and exploitation of it.

    6. Re:I don't get it by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural fertilizer." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party.

      Wise words.

      In this case the tyrants would be the CEOs behind RIAA and MPAA and the Author's Guild. Jefferson in 1816 wrote a friend, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country". ALSO: "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

      Sometimes I wonder if this guy had a crystal ball. Almost everything he said has come true. Today we spend 2000 billion dollars, and tomorrow our children and grandchildren are expected to pay their parents' debt. Nice. And corporations exert more power over government than do the People for which government exists! Of course Jefferson knew his history - everything he warned against had already happened in the past.

      We just keep repeating the same mistakes.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:I don't get it by moteyalpha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Very insightful and if I had mod points today, you would get them. Also I see that it is a hopeless effort on their part if there is demand. It is like keeping picnic baskets from bears. I can think of several ways around the P2P restrictions using steganography, and other transforms. By attempting to block the most primitive methods that the bears use, it will lead to smarter bears and an ever more expensive government bureaucracy, which is probably their goal.
      Bureaucrats think in terms of selecting a niche that has endless and lifelong traction and income.

    8. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there are so many infringers, then the law does not serve the people...

    9. Re:I don't get it by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because there are so many infringers that the court system would be clogged for years with nothing else and the cost for the justice system not bearable.

      The reason "Western" countries thrive because the police & judiciary are strong, respected, and are (mostly) corruption free. Removing any segment of society from the State's protection is short sighted and wrong.

      When a law cannot be practically enforced by the police or the courts, the proper response is to revisit the law, not to move enforcement outside the State's legal system.

      Fuck, even the Magna Carta says:
      To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:I don't get it by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SSL VPN P2P "darknets" already exist.

      My question is, how would a P2P blocking/throttling methodology at the ISP level effect those content producers who distribute via P2P?

    11. Re:I don't get it by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what is PATRIOTISM?

      When did American become a religion as opposed to a nationality?

    12. Re:I don't get it by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just wait. Pretty soon the Used CD market won't exist, because corporations will wisely only make songs/albums available by download. You'll have no choice but to "buy new".

      You'll always have the choice of not buying. There's a lot of free stuff available and there are also indie labels that are not affiliated with RIAA and buddies.

      Oh, they're already well down the road to dealing with those problems.

      Audience not buying? Place a tax on blank CDs, DVDs, hard drives, etc and give the proceeds to the labels and movie studios.

      Indie means of marketing & distribution allowing artists to bypass the media cartels? Pass a law such as was done in the US to impose disproportionately-large "broadcasting" fees on things like internet radio collected and managed by a recording industry company (SoundExchange), and by collecting these "license fees" on non-RIAA affiliated artists, force them to either sign up or lose that money. The only way an internet radio station may avoid paying these much-higher-than-over-air broadcast fees is if they file ahead with a copy of a contract with each individual artist for each individual work, making record-keeping and administration costs skyrocket. Both sides, the indie artists and the internet broadcasters, are therefor punished, discouraged, and harassed.

      As can be seen, they are already working on eliminating or severely limiting any alternate means of artists to market & distribute their work without them getting the lions' share of the money.

      I'm waiting to see what they'll try next. Maybe DRM-enabled instruments that automatically deduct micropayments whenever certain copyrighted note combinations (which can be as few as three notes based on court cases) are played?

      Ok, I gotta stop. I'm depressing myself.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:I don't get it by DangerFace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you'd better be pretty famous already

      ...and I'm sure it's much easier to get famous when people have to pay you just in order to listen to your music. In fact, why not extend the point? It is, in fact, harder to give something away for free than sell it for extortionate sums! And incidentally, I am a musician and would never, ever charge for my music, beyond the costs of distribution - just with my laptop, a few bits and bobs and my trusty SM57 I could make an album tomorrow, master it the next day, and be giving it away the day after with no capital outlay whatsoever outside of what I have spent on treats for myself - and I'm learning to program almost specifically for the purpose of not charging for it. So, that's your experience out the window. So...

      Revenue = ($0 * units) + donations = $some

      Distribution costs = ($x * units) - ($x * units) = $0

      Initial costs = $0

      Money from playing live = $quite a bit - $a little bit = $some

      Total profit = $some + $0 + $0 + $some = 2*$some

      --
      Be smart, help people!
    14. Re:I don't get it by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In Jefferson's time, people regularly fought and died for their beliefs. Today, you may be right, but when Jefferson wrote those words, HE was right. And he still is. If no one is willing to risk death for freedom, then liberty will wither away (like it has been doing).

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
  2. Why they bother to try? by Darkk · · Score: 5, Informative

    We can encrypt bit-torrent files so they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between P2P to normal traffic. Sheesh.

    1. Re:Why they bother to try? by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But if the technical solutions find their way into mainstream programs as default settings, what then?

      If Limewire and uTorrent and such were to adopt, as default, new technology to disguise file-sharing (and it'd be in their interest to, if ISPs were blocking these programmes en mass), most people would use it. Most people would use it and not even know they were using it.

    2. Re:Why they bother to try? by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of the ISP filtering nowadays isn't based on protocol specific filtering... it's based on the idea that if you have multiple incoming connections all at once, you're probably using BitTorrent, so they filter you.

      If you can get around that, you're a smarter man than I.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Why they bother to try? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait until bittorrent is a popular method for delivering licensed content. WoW patches are BT aren't they? Wasn't the BBC talking about content delivery via BT?

  3. And in other news ... by krou · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... 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."

    Bragg was speaking as a key member of the coalition, which was set up to give a collective voice to artists who want to fight for their rights in the digital world. It is pushing for a fairer deal for musicians at a time when they can use the internet to forge direct links with their fans. "What I said at the meeting was that the record industry in Britain is still going down the road of criminalising our audience for downloading illegal MP3s," he said.

    "If we follow the music industry down that road, we will be doing nothing more than being part of a protectionist effort. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

    "Artists should own their own rights and they should decide when their music should be used for free, or when they should have payment."

    The artists wanted to tell Lord Carter "that we want to side with the audience, the consumer".

    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
    1. Re:And in other news ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. So... by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How am I supposed to get my Brit TV fix now? If they block everything off, I won't be able to torrent shows I can't officially see here in the US, like The IT Crowd or FM or even No Heroics.

    That really sucks.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  5. It is still theft by cecom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It is still theft by cecom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I don't have mod points to mod you down as troll..

      Just because I have a different opinion, and am not afraid to express it, and am not posting as an AC, does not make me a troll. Not that I give a rat's ass about how you would hypothetically moderate me.

      Apart from you mixing up stealing with copying songs.. I think you should research ethics. Ethics is more about acting on what you believe to be right despite outside influence than defining right from wrong. You may take issue with people's choices but trying to paint a picture of morality with copyright infringers on the wrong side seems an arrogant attempt to impose your choices on others.

      Don't be ridiculous. I believe that I have the right to steal your car. Enough said.

      This is a much more sensible point and one which I am glad to respond to. If people are not willing to pay for something.. then they make the choice not to invest in it. In the case of material goods.. this means you walk away as you cannot have the goods without depriving someone else. If the goods are infinite then there is nothing lost should you choose not to invest in the person who created them. It is easy to make a concious choice as to whether you want to support the person who creates something. It is harder to make this concious choice if you are forced by law to pay the creater regardless of whether you wanted to or not. To those like me who oppose it, copyright law adds nothing to society.. it only takes away through creating a society where everything people do has to be a commodity and that people such as musicians are only worth as much as you spend on their CD's.

      This is wrong on several levels. Firstly, nobody is forcing you to pay for copyrighted content, if you don't like it. Don't listen to copyrighted songs. There are enough bands who are willing to to give their music for free (and I applaud them for it), so it is not like you don't have a choice. Similarly, there is plenty of free software.

      Secondly, the notion that the "goods" are infinite is provably wrong. A movie may take, say, 30 man/years to create. Who is going to do it for free? If you come up with an alternative way for compensating that work (compulsory licensing, whatever), and creators decide to adopt it, then I am all for it.

      Everyone needs to make a living somehow. If you cannot work out how to do it without copyright.. don't be a software developer. There are plenty of people out there who would be glad for less competition.

      Wow, I have never heard that argument before. And as usual it is so full of substance. You do realize that currently copyright pays the salary of most developers? There aren't many successful businesses who rely entirely on free software. Most either sell non-open source versions of their products, or have some entirely non-free add-ons, or rely on hardware sales.

      To take a random example, how many high profile free games have you seen? Oh, yes, all game companies should immediately listen to you and close down because they can't figure out how to make money without copyright.

      Don't get me wrong, I would like to live in an utopia as mush as the next guy, and I find idealism charming, but come on...