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."

13 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 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."
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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...

    6. 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!
    7. 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!
    8. 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.

  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.