Slashdot Mirror
UK ISP Disconnects Customers For File Sharing
think_nix writes "Karoo, an ISP in Hull, in the UK, is disconnecting subscribers without warning if they file-share, or are even suspected of file-sharing. Karoo is the only ISP in the area. Copyright owners are working with the ISP helping them identify and report suspected filesharers using their services. In order to get service restored, subscribers have to go to Karoo's office and sign a form admitting guilt and promising not to do it again. The article states that some subscribers have had their access cut off for more than two years." Update: 07/24 16:29 GMT by KD : The Register is reporting that Karoo has relented and has changed its policy. A spokesman said: "It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."
I guess they don't know about file caching...
Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_upon_Hull#Telephone_system
Get the IP address of the Karoo president, and denounce him to the Karoo tech as the originator of suspicious copyrighted file sharing. Hilarity ensues.
I can't understand that, if theirs only one ISP it should be a requirement to maintain at least basic service. Considering how much government business is moving online, this is now a requirement to function.
Or you could try to make a comment that is interesting, insightful, and/or informative like everyone else who wants to maintain their karma. It isn't really that hard, and that goes for everyone looking to get the karma bonus. The biggest thing is to be patient and wait until you have something interesting to contribute, rather than feeling like you need to comment at every opportunity.
What struck me about this whole thing is the alleged file-sharer has to sign a document admitting guilt and then the promise that they wouldn't do it again.
Seems awfully heavy handed to me, not to mention legally tricky for those who are accused. What's to say that by signing that document, they won't open themselves up to legal motions by the multinational entertainment companies.
I don't understand why ISPs want to be in the business of policing their users: it costs money to do that. It also costs them lost revenue for cutting off users. Why don't the ISPs just say "It's not our problem" to the copyright holders presumably just as the Postal Service would say if people were sending copyrighted documents, CDs, or DVDs through the mail.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
The summary is incorrect. They still have the option to use dialup from some other company, or satellite.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
At first I thought they would disconnect me for sharing ubuntu-9.04-desktop-i386.iso . Then when the summary mentioned copyright owners, I wasn't so sure. Then the summary mentioned "admitting guilt", what guilt?
Apparently "kangaroo court" is now "karoo court"...
From the Summary:
"The article states that some subscribers have had their access cut off for more than two years." WRONG.
From the Article:
"The terms and conditions Karoo enforce are not new - the BBC has spoken to customers whose accounts were suspended over two years ago." In actuality, this only means that the enforcement of this policy has been in use for over two years, not that actual customers have been without internet access for that time duration.
In the U.S., you typically have both the cable company and the phone company vying for Internet business.
WTF are you basing this on? DSL only ranges about 15,000 to 18,000 feet from the DSLAM. There are huge swaths of land that don't receive DSL service, even in fairly suburban areas. The telco can install remote DSLAMs if they want to but many don't make the effort because there aren't enough potential customers in the area to justify the expense.
There are many areas where the cableco is your only choice. Worse, the cableco knows this. In my area you can usually get Time Warner to lower your rate if you threaten to move to DSL -- but if you live in an area where DSL isn't an option they refuse any sort of rate deal because they know they have you by the balls.
You are also discounting the remote areas that have DSL service but are stuck with slow service because of the distance and/or provider policy. I can get DSL where I live -- at a whooping 1.5mbit/s for the same price that Time Warner can deliver 8.0mbit/s. 1.5 isn't really enough to watch decent quality video. So I'm stuck with Time Warner even though DSL is an option.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
well, guilty actually, since there doesn't seem to be any provision for proving your innocence. So, guilty until admitted guilty.
How about going to their office en masse and burning it down?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"IP2P is used exclusively to STEAL"
Wrong. True, a lot of people use it to steal. That's unfortunate. But there *are* legitimate uses of P2P technologies. I've used BitTorrent to download perfectly legal ISO's of Linux distros (Ubuntu provides links to the torrent right on the Ubuntu website, though you do have to hunt a little bit to find them). Same with OpenOffice.org. IIRC, Fedora also provides a torrent of the Fedora ISOs.
There was an HD 'tv' show, a couple years ago, called MariposaHD. The producers of the show distribute it exclusively by BitTorrent (it's still available if you care to check it out - it's mostly eye candy - some guys going to different South/Central American countries and taking HD footage of scenery and chicks - lots of chicks lol). The reason I mention it, is that I think there is real potential, in the future, for using P2P technologies to legally distribute HD content. I'd like to see more online video services perhaps adopt more P2P technologies - there's no reason a for-profit company couldn't potentially use P2P to increase their market reach and profitability.
Blizzard uses BitTorrent to push out updates for World of Warcraft.
There is a LOT of potential for P2P data distribution to be used both legally and productively. Unfortunately, so many people have the mindset you do, that they fail to realize the potential of P2P. It can dramatically reduce an online publishers costs in terms of how much bandwidth they have to buy in order to provide content to huge numbers of customers. It scales well with demand (the more people downloading in a P2P network, particularly with BitTorrent, but other protocols as well, the more other peers there are to download from).
Isn't that why you pay for bandwidth? If a company advertises I can buy 5 liters of Coke a week for $2, and I drink five liters of Coke a week, and pay my $2, who are they to complain that I'm drinking more than my fair share of Coke? If they cannot afford to actually provide me 5 liters/week for $2, then they should change their advertising and product offering to something more reasonable.
It's not quite as simple as that.
We don't have a DMCA and as far as I am aware, the ISP cannot be sued by the content provider for allowing copyright infringement.
So, why does the ISP police its users like this? Simple. The content industry went to the government and said "waah waah piracy is costing us billions every week!" and the government came back with an ultimatum to ISPs: "do something about it or we'll pass a law forcing you to".
Now we have a situation where instead of this policing following a law (which at least generally has the good grace to deal with such things as providing a due process and an appeals procedure), it's based on your contract with your ISP which they can rewrite on a whim.
I think I'd have preferred the law.
"It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."
Sit!
Fetch!
Good boy!
Not trying to belittle the problem of moderators censoring what they don't agree with, but have you tried posting on sites that use different moderation schemes? Slashdot is well above average when it comes to giving all sides a voice, probably because the relative scarcity of mod points encourages people to mod up rather than mod down. It's a lot like democracy being a horrible form a government (but the best one that we've found); Slashdot's moderation system allows for abuse and community censorship, but it is the best system I've seen on the Internet.