Slashdot Mirror


UK ISP Spots a File-Sharing Loophole, Implements It

An anonymous reader writes "As well as taking an active part in OFCOM's code of obligations in regards to the ill-conceived Digital Economy Act (the UK three-strikes law for filesharers), niche ISP Andrews & Arnold have identified various loopholes in the law, the main one being that a customer can be classified as a communications provider. They have now implemented measures so in your control panel you may register your legal status and be classed as such." Another of the loopholes this inventive ISP sussed out: "Operating more than one retail arm selling to customers and allowing customers to migrate freely with no change to service between those retail arms, thus bypassing copyright notice counting and any blocking orders."

179 comments

  1. Lets get rid of it by funkatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Vote pirate, or green or yellow or something like that. Anyone who thought that this was a good idea doesn't deserve to win.

    --
    "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    1. Re:Lets get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol pirates, what next?

    2. Re:Lets get rid of it by grantek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ISPs siding with the public domain is a good step towards having governments listen to someone other than media corporations - hopefully plenty of people flock to this.

    3. Re:Lets get rid of it by zero.kalvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if what I am saying is 100% correct. But people who might vote for Pirate, Green, ect ect. are mostly geeks or people directly involved in this. The problem is that the general population are not very tech savvy or don't care(yet). What is needed now is not voting for these parties(even though it is important, and we should do it), but it's education the general population of the dangers of these laws and how can it affect them. Point is we need advertisement campaign or whatever that might do the trick. Or else we will have an internet dark age. However Kudos for the ISP, good work I say.

    4. Re:Lets get rid of it by tdobson · · Score: 1

      Vote pirate

      As a Pirate Party candidate for Manchester Gorton, I say, "hear hear"

      http://votepirate.org/gorton

    5. Re:Lets get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just writing to tell ya all, that my vote goes to my local pirat this election.

    6. Re:Lets get rid of it by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you know not to vote for the other pirate party that's standing (ok, in Westminster, not Gorton) with the aptly named Mad Cap'n Tom

      Just be glad there's no Ninja or Monkey parties standing in the same constituency! (and yes, you may be surprised to hear there's a facebook page you can join)

    7. Re:Lets get rid of it by e70838 · · Score: 1

      Too sad I can not mod this up: score is already 5

      This deserve more than 5.

    8. Re:Lets get rid of it by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      How is this "siding with the public domain"? Does this, in any way, increase the number or quality of works in the public domain?

      As far as I can see, all this ISP is doing is siding with pirates, their best customers.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    9. Re:Lets get rid of it by cheeseandham · · Score: 1

      Since this ISP charges for bandwidth (and quite heavily during the day) and are more expensive than other providers that supply truly unlimited tariffs such as BeThere, I fail to see how "pirates" can be "their best customers"

    10. Re:Lets get rid of it by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The key issue for me is not the copyright law. I don't care if Paramount and other companies want to protect their income stream on the new Star Trek movie.

      The issue for me is that these 3-strike laws assign punishment without benefit of trial by jury. And once that precedent is set, then the government can further erode the rights of Englishmen. "You were caught stealing three times. 5 years jail for you." - "But I had no trial." - "Precedent shows we don't need to give you a trial. Take him away!"

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:Lets get rid of it by joshua · · Score: 1

      They use more bandwidth, and thus get charged more! Simples.

    12. Re:Lets get rid of it by Snarf+You · · Score: 2, Informative

      Could it be because this ISP charges for bandwidth (and quite heavily during the day) and are more expensive than other providers that supply truly unlimited tariffs?

    13. Re:Lets get rid of it by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Pirates are any ISP's best customers. Once a pirate is hooked, then they're not likely to stop or downgrade their internet service. If anything, they'll upgrade their internet service.

      If the ISP charges for the bandwidth they use, even better.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    14. Re:Lets get rid of it by Malc · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your best bet is to vote Lib-Dem this election, and suck it up until the following election. Then vote Pirate. Assumes though that the Lib-Dems will actually implement a decent form of proportional representation.

    15. Re:Lets get rid of it by pstorry · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep, they're not cheap.

      But they offer static IPs, in both IPv4 and IPv6. They do decent monitoring of your line, and have excellent tools for reporting your bandwidth usage, uptime and so forth. They can be your domain registrar and offer DNS servers.

      With the exception of the bandwidth limits, they're pretty much a geek's dream ISP - pay for good service, get good service.

      Heck, you can ask their support staff questions via IRC. You can get SMS alerts when your ADSL line is down.

      I have two friends that use A&A. They're very happy with them. Most other people I know are on cheap ADSL providers, Virgin Cable or work for an ISP so have a connection through their employer anyway. I don't really hear complaints from the A&A users or those getting their connection from their employer. But everyone else, myself included, has had issues and not felt the support was good.

      And no, I don't work for A&A. I get my internet connection through Virgin's cable service, because I had cable already. And I'm not being paid to say this - A&A don't know me from the proverbial Adam.

      But A&A are the first company I'd look at if I had to switch to ADSL. I want their service, despite the costs.

      It's not about piracy, this is about service. Many A&A customers host their own webservers at home, for example... Do you want to lose your internet connection just because of a bogus complaint about a webserver only you and a few friends use?

      That's probably why they're putting these protections in, more than anything else. Arse covering for their customers. ;-)

    16. Re:Lets get rid of it by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 1

      Um.. Because the pirates use the most bandwidth, therefore pay the most? (And may choose AAISP because of their stance on the DEA, therefore putting up with the price)

    17. Re:Lets get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirates are any ISP's best customers.

      Are you kidding? most ISPs HATE pirates, they use all of their available bandwidth causing congestion and ultimately cost for th provider... ISPs favourite customers are old people who pay for a massive package *snigger* but barely use it.

    18. Re:Lets get rid of it by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're OK, but they're only really prevalent in the low cost plans. Pirates are addicted and enslaved to ISPs for life (barring an uncommonly massive force of will/conscience).

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    19. Re:Lets get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you're looking at it the wrong way around...

      Any ISP would prefer 50x "web surfing customers" surfing 1Gb a month (or offices buying 1Gb at £4 p/month) rather than 1x "pirate customer" using their 50Gb "off-peak allowance" (or buying another 50Gb for another £4)

      Heavy bandwidth customers are not as profitable as low bandwidth customers - particularly when the ISP in question doesn't traffic-manage, but buys more capacity to keep the service running smoothly.

    20. Re:Lets get rid of it by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The best the Lib Dem can hope for is a coalition with the Tories, and that's a god-awful thing to have. Here's my idea of the proportional representation discussion in the Commons, should it occur:

      Clegg: Proportional representation please!
      Cameron: DENIED!

      Ad infinitum, and that will apply for every single decision for the next four years. It will suck.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    21. Re:Lets get rid of it by Malc · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't go on for four years. PR is a fundamental requirement for the Lib-Dems. A coalition only works whilst both parties have each other's support.

      Canada is actually in an interesting position right now. They've had a minority Tory government (a.k.a. hung parliament) for some time, with no coalition. The opposition don't bring them down for two reasons: 1) voters don't want another election yet; 2) none of the opposition parties thinks their support has grown enough to make it worthwhile. Every key vote becomes tense as it could come down to a motion of confidence in the government. The Tories have still managed some distasteful policies, and even prorogued parliament a couple of times to their benefit.

    22. Re:Lets get rid of it by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      An ISP siding with their customers ? Now there's a novelty.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    23. Re:Lets get rid of it by dmcgk · · Score: 1

      To continue their geek cred, they also offer the potential for a complete IPv6 native stack *without native IPv4* by offering 'a DNS resolver that provides fake responses for any host that has an IPv4 address but not an IPv6 address, and a gateway that maps those fake IPv6 addresses in to the IPv4 world': http://aaisp.net.uk/kb-broadband-ipv6-nat64.html It works, and it works well. No more DHCP.

    24. Re:Lets get rid of it by delinear · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine that happening - even if the Lib Dems get in, they're not going to win by the kind of landslide that lets them pass legislation without the help of at least one of the other major parties. Lab/Con will never vote for it, because they're the big winners in the non-proportional, non-democratic current system. Maybe if the country sees a long-term switch to a three part race, we might see changes along these lines in a few generations, but I won't hold my breath.

    25. Re:Lets get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they recently updated their prices, they now *are* about the same price as the other providers. You just get a smaller daytime download allowance - one that is in line with the reality of the actual cost the them.

    26. Re:Lets get rid of it by tdobson · · Score: 1

      Yes... Everyone in Westminister is poised to see who benefits from the split in the Pirate Vote - Jack Nunn is also standing for PPUK in Westminster!

    27. Re:Lets get rid of it by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Second this! i do use them and love them.
      Yes they charge for usage during the daytime, but only downloads, uploads are unmetered (so you can leave things seeding, kick off your offsite backup during the day etc). I don't see it as an issue. Besides metered access is fair if the greatest cost is the trunk bandwidth. (less fair if the greatest cost is the cost of the line, but that all depends on your business model).

      As parent said even if there is a premium it is worth it (for me) because they give a better service. Unlike some ISPs my connection does not get slower at around 7pm unlike when I used to be on cable.
      And no I don't work for them either I am just a very satisfied customer.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    28. Re:Lets get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're great for a geek's home service, but their pricing model sucks for many businesses. I still use them at home, but we've dropped them at work now and I wouldn't recommend them for anyone with high download requirements. There are many better options if your business is growing and heavily dependent on the net.

    29. Re:Lets get rid of it by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pirates are any ISP's best customers. Once a pirate is hooked, then they're not likely to stop or downgrade their internet service. If anything, they'll upgrade their internet service.

      If the ISP charges for the bandwidth they use, even better.

      Actually, no. People who use bandwidth are an ISP's worst customers. They want to sell their basic high-speed plans to people who'll check email once a week and maybe surf the BBC or CNN for a few minutes daily, tops. They'll try to convince those who just use twitter and facebook all day that they need the next tier up. And oh, if you do any sort of gaming, well, you really want the super-high-speed $100+/month plan!

      These people pay big bucks and the ISP can oversell very easily.

      Pirates who use all their bandwidth mean they can't oversell as much. They'd much rather kick them off and replace them (even if they're paying $100+/month) with 5 light users who pay $40/month.

    30. Re:Lets get rid of it by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      ninjas of course.

    31. Re:Lets get rid of it by alfredos · · Score: 0

      That's probably why they're putting these protections in, more than anything else. Arse covering for their customers. ;-)

      I'd go one step further than that. I would think that they discovered a way to sell more, and they are simply doing it. If it fits with the company owner's moral convictions, all the best - they will do it better and sell more.

      I should add as a disclaimer that I have been involved with ISPs for well over half of my professional life - currently I operate a small one - small wonder if I'm a bit biased!

    32. Re:Lets get rid of it by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. People who use bandwidth are an ISP's worst customers.

      Actually no, some ISP's are like that. Here in the socialist paradise of Australia (note the heavy sarcasm dear rednecks) we have already dealt with this. Regulation such as fixing wholesale leasing prices, setting minimum standards for service and punishments for false advertising have created a market where competition can enter easily and ISP's are not permitted to deceive the public. Also due to our communistic contract law, ISP's are not permitted to take away anything from my contract unless I agree and sign a new contract.

      We have telco's that thrive off the uninformed users (Hellstra and OptArse) but we also have good ISP's like iinet and Internode. Now because we have truth in advertising laws ISP's are not permitted to advertise "unlimited" plans that cut you off after X number of GB so they have to advertise the service they actually offer (download quota). iinet, just yesterday expanded my quota from 30+30 GB* to 50+50 GB as their wholesale price of bandwidth dropped (bandwidth out of Australia is very expensive due to our isolation). I pay A$49.95 a month for this, iinet makes more money from it's heavy downloaders as the light downloaders go onto the A$20 plan where as if you want 100+100 GB you need to pay A$130. The more you DL, the more you are worth to your ISP. For the email crowd, DSL ISP's are competing with wireless (3G mobile) ISP's who sell 1 GB a month for A$20.

      * 30+30 refers to 30 GB metered during the on peak (8 AM to 2 AM for iinet) and 30 GB metered during the off peak time (2 AM to 8 AM for iinet). After exceeding your quota your connection is shaped to 128 Kbs until your next billing period.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    33. Re:Lets get rid of it by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you know not to vote for the other pirate party that's standing (ok, in Westminster, not Gorton) with the aptly named Mad Cap'n Tom

      Indeed! Tom was quite apologetic once he realised that he'd be running against PPUK -- he apparently didn't intend to cause any confusion with our chap.

    34. Re:Lets get rid of it by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      For a pirate, Tom seems such a nice chap.

      Good luck to you both!

    35. Re:Lets get rid of it by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Somebody should put together a webpage of ISPs like A&A and iiNet - ones that offer good customer service and actively defend them against these kind of laws.
      Alternatively, we could just keep posting them on slashdot like this...

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  2. That'll work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep dreaming.

    1. Re:That'll work by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      The second one increases the number of offenses that go without consequence from 2 to 2*[branches of the ISP]
      It's the ISP that has to cut off, and they count offenses per branch. So if they transfer you to another branch upon receiving a second notice, you have clean account with the new branch. (and you could have signed away the right to transfer your account like that in the contract)

      Of course this won't work with very massive offenders, but suddenly a 3-strikes law becomes a 37-strikes law or something.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:That'll work by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      2*[branches of the ISP]*[Family members/friends/dog]

      Also the act says nothing about keeping a count for *ex* subscribers.. so pingponging between two may be enough.

    3. Re:That'll work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There shouldn't be any limits as I'd imagine once you switch to branch #2 then you are no longer a customer of branch #1 and so they can remove your details. Then there is no limit as you can do the reverse just as easily.

  3. I can't believe..... by cb95amc · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....that such a well planned and comprehensive peice of legislation would have loopholes. It's almost as if they rushed it through the legislative process, but I'm sure our politicians would never be so careless....

    1. Re:I can't believe..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....that such a well planned and comprehensive peice of legislation would have loopholes. It's almost as if they rushed it through the legislative process, but I'm sure our politicians would never be so careless....

      Loopholes can be found in just about any legislation

    2. Re:I can't believe..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Poopholes can be found just above any legislation

    3. Re:I can't believe..... by Angostura · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but the point is that this was rushed through as part of the "washup" at the end of parliament, so did not have the same level of scrutiny as it would normally do. It's a crass way to handle complex legislation and I'm glad that this ISP has taken the time to go through the details. Well done.

    4. Re:I can't believe..... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was voted in by about 200 pissed up MPs who had been dragged out of the pub to make sure it passed. Only about 40 actually attended the debate.

      Watching it happen was an eye opener to say the least. Any illusions that we have actual representation died that day.

    5. Re:I can't believe..... by thomst · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure our politicians would never be so careless....

      Then you must grow 'em smarter over there than we do over here.

      Could we borrow some of your breeding stock?

      --
      Check out my novel.
    6. Re:I can't believe..... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Before this copyright infringement was not a indictable offence i.e only a Civil Offence in which the police have no power and had to be made by the Copyright holder directly on the alleged offender, this is still true but now they can on suspicion only get the ISP to punish the alleged offender without a court order and without a hearing ....

      The ISP will have to pay for (at least part) of this process, and will lose a customer .... No wonder why they are trying to find loopholes

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    7. Re:I can't believe..... by value_added · · Score: 1

      Then you must grow 'em smarter over there than we do over here. Could we borrow some of your breeding stock?

      Be careful of what you wish for.

    8. Re:I can't believe..... by houghi · · Score: 1

      That is because you had special interest. If you would have had special interest before, this would have been no surprise. This is how politics work. Politics are not done in the big room. That is where the debates (not discussions, debates) are held. The real politics happens behind doors and most likely a LOT of it in the pub or "Tussen pot en pint" as they say in Belgium.

      That is not always a bad thing. Unfortunately what politicians have forgotten is that they work for the public, not for the profit of companies.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:I can't believe..... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those of you who might think that this is an exaduration, here's a snapshot (and associated article) from the BBC's coverage.

      I'm fucking disgusted.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    10. Re:I can't believe..... by delinear · · Score: 1

      I'm sure our politicians would never be so careless....

      Then you must grow 'em smarter over there than we do over here.

      Could we borrow some of your breeding stock?

      You're assuming that smarter means less greedy. I'd rather have a greedy incompetent politician who screws us over a little than a greedy intelligent politician who screws us over a lot. Of course, what I'd really like is an intelligent politician who wasn't out to line his own pockets, but that's definitely straying into the realms of fantasy.

    11. Re:I can't believe..... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      If you didn't have representation, you wouldn't have had all those loopholes...

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    12. Re:I can't believe..... by sorak · · Score: 1

      I'm sure our politicians would never be so careless....

      Then you must grow 'em smarter over there than we do over here.

      Could we borrow some of your breeding stock?

      Why am I hearing the Austin Powers theme song right now?

    13. Re:I can't believe..... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      so did not have the same level of scrutiny as it would normally do

      No, it was about the same. Under Blair the amount of scrutiny legislation receives was severely reduced, which allowed his government to push more of it through. He created a culture in which a minister only considers themselves successful if they get a Bill passed every eighteen months or so.

    14. Re:I can't believe..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An exaduration is a mighty long time.

    15. Re:I can't believe..... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      mighty long time

      Strong words.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  4. Well done by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope that the ISP will earn enough money from this, so that they will be able to defend this when faced legal action.

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
    1. Re:Well done by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, who will be suing them? The Labels cant. The practice of letting users register as communications providers has nothing to do with them or their content. The state? Over a service they provide for their customers? Not happening. Also UK is not us AFAIK. No punitive damages.

    2. Re:Well done by iYk6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's sort of what I was thinking. Giant corporations can take advantage of loopholes to rip off their customers. Individuals and small businesses can't do that.

    3. Re:Well done by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There must be some redress that the labels can take against an ISP that is ignoring the rules. Now you can say "they aren't ignoring the rules", but the only person that can decide whether they are flouting the law or not is a judge.

    4. Re:Well done by Weezul · · Score: 1

      The MafiAA can (1) buy more legislation, (2) pay the police to harass them, (3) sue for contributory infringement, etc. UK is a very shitty place for modern human rights, they'll get stopped eventually.

      That said, if they're clean enough, they'll gain many many customers while the labels react, they might not pay any damages, and they'll surely raise awareness for copyright reform.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    5. Re:Well done by delinear · · Score: 1

      The action would still have to be against the end user rather than the ISP, though. The only question is whether the actions of the ISP are sufficient to provide the user with a defense.

  5. Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently those running the ISP - presumably geeks - know how to interpret the laws better than those who wrote the laws themselves.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is only one interpretation of the l;aw that counts, and that's the judge's one. This is espacially true in UK's(and US's) Common Law system.

      So, they found loopholes, or so they think. They may be correct, but you will not know until thoose loopholes are tested in a courthouse.

    2. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by amw · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is only one interpretation of the l;aw that counts, and that's the judge's one. This is espacially true in UK's(and US's) Common Law system.

      Either you or I have misunderstood this particular section of the Digital Economy Act, and the balance of probabilities suggests that it's you. At issue is not the legality of sharing the files - the DEA doesn't deal with that, that's part of pre-existing Copyright acts - but the short-cut that now exists that enables rightsholders to harrass suspected filesharers through their ISP without the need for a court order.

      Before the DEA, firms were required to issue a court order to the ISP - a timeconsuming and potentially expensive process if done in bulk - in order to collect enough information to contact the individuals themselves. With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.

      So, they found loopholes, or so they think. They may be correct, but you will not know until thoose loopholes are tested in a courthouse.

      The loopholes definitely exist, I've seen the various discussions that led to A&A making the implementations discussed and it is quite clear from the wording of the DEA itself (which, combined with the Telecommunitions Act IIRC, is very specific in its definitions of the parties concerned). The legal route, where the case can be presented in front of a judge, does still exist: it just requires more effort on the part of the rightsholders, and specifically the amount of effort that they should have had to take in the first place before the DEA came into effect.

    3. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well I'd say that the biggest flaw is not the loopholes, it's the fact that in the end the copyright holder still has to sue the individual they suspect of copyright infringement. As yet the idea that a screenshot and IP address are enough evidence is an entirely untested one.

      There are also the human rights issues. If someone in a household does download something and gets the internet connection cut off, what about the other people who live there? Imaging being a student and not having the internet at home, preventing you from doing your work. Presumably you can't just switch ISP to get the connection back, unless they less that massive hole open too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Rennt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Presumably you can't just switch ISP to get the connection back, unless they less that massive hole open too.

      Indeed, this is one of the holes they are exploiting: "Operating more than one retail arm selling to customers and allowing customers to migrate freely with no change to service between those retail arms, thus bypassing copyright notice counting and any blocking orders."

    5. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Before the DEA, firms were required to issue a court order to the ISP - a timeconsuming and potentially expensive process if done in bulk - in order to collect enough information to contact the individuals themselves. With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.

      Require how? There must be some recourse that the copyright holder can take against an ISP that is failing to respond to complaints. Eventually such a recourse could end up in front of a judge, and that's when AAISP might find themselves in hot water.

    6. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ISP is responding to complaints. Once you switch from A&A1 to A&A2 you are using a new ISP. A&A1 isn't
      required to keep your details unless you had 3 strikes and possibly not even then. A&A is following the DEA
      entirely. The same goes for the customers registering as a communications provider. The copyright holder
      will then have to contact the customer to get them to 'notify' whoever it was but they can simply say they
      dont have those records. The only problem I can see there is that as a 'communications provider' the customer
      might be required to keep IP/SMS/Email logs (whatever those silly terrorism knee-jerk laws required providers to keep).

    7. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by amw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With the DEA in place, they can simply require the ISP to do their donkey work.

      Require how? There must be some recourse that the copyright holder can take against an ISP that is failing to respond to complaints.

      By 'require', I was referring to the fact that the DEA allows rightsholders to send their complaints to an ISP, and the ISP is required by law to pass those complaints on and (I think - I've not read it in a while) take further action where they relate to a subscriber of that ISP. AAISP's view is apparently that they can alter the status of their customers away from 'subscriber' to circumvent this requirement.

      Eventually such a recourse could end up in front of a judge, and that's when AAISP might find themselves in hot water.

      They seem to believe otherwise. It is quite possible (I'm not going to say 'likely', these things are notoriously difficult to predict) that the judge will view the legal definitions as strictly as they are written, and AAISP can be shown to be in the right legally. At which point, court orders again become a requirement in order for the holders to contact the potential infringers directly.

      None of this is directly aimed at taking the legal system out of the loop when it comes to copyright infringment. That is still something that can be put before a judge in a court of law. AAISP are, it seems, simply applying a large 'RESET' button that puts things back to how they were before this section of the DEA was put into law.

    8. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by grahamm · · Score: 1

      For many of AAISP's customers, there is a much simpler way that the rights holders could contact the potential infringer directly. AAISP only supply fixed static IP (both IPv4 & IPv6) addresses to customers and a whois on these addresses identify the customer. Of course, if the customer is a private individual, the privacy laws allow him to suppress much of the personal details from the whois record. So rather than needing a court order, all the rights holder has to do is issue a whois query on the alleged offending IP address.

    9. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by darthflo · · Score: 1

      The effect seems to be positive nonetheless. According to their page, communications providers don't really need to bother looking at infringement reports. Classify yourself as one and AAISP won't care about your infringement reports directed to them. You, equally, don't have to care about your infringement reports directed to yourself; after all you're a communications provider, not a subscriber.
      If whomever is sending out the reports is serious, they can still go the legal route. They could do that before (sue John Doe to get your information from the ISP, then sue you) and still can (sue you directly). In any case, the whole infringement report business is rendered useless.

    10. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by amw · · Score: 1

      Of course, if the customer is a private individual, the privacy laws allow him to suppress much of the personal details from the whois record. So rather than needing a court order, all the rights holder has to do is issue a whois query on the alleged offending IP address.

      Just out of interest, who would the rightsholder be allowed to approach (going by the DEA and AAISP's definition of 'subscriber') if the individual's personal details are suppressed?

    11. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just out of interest, who would the rightsholder be allowed to approach (going by the DEA and AAISP's definition of 'subscriber') if the individual's personal details are suppressed?

      I think the idea here is "no one, get a warrant/subpoena". Since that information is, you know, private.

      Good on this ISP. Refreshing to see a company actually care about its customers.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    12. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      That's because the people who wrote them were much too full of roast beef, spotted dick and brandy when they wrote them.

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by amw · · Score: 1

      I think the idea here is "no one, get a warrant/subpoena"

      My question was more, who would the warrant be addressed to? RIPE? IANA? Would the rightsholders necessarily know to contact AAISP - or any other ISP that also implements this tactic - in what is effectively their role as just an upstream provider?

      (I guess they could just traceroute and pick the ISP immediately before the customer, but that's starting to get awkward).

    14. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Cannot agree more, many judges even break laws as far as I can tell with some of their rulings.

      If the judge hates file sharing enough, or their is enough force lobbied against this ISP it will not matter if they have the law on their side.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    15. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by rufty_tufty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disclaimer, I may not be an apple or linux fanboy, but i might just be an AAISP fanboy: I use AAISP as my service provider at home and they are awesome!

      Want static IP addresses? Sure, how many? As long as they see access on roughly half of the addresses you ask for, no more questions. Very very useful for IP phones.
      Want detailed traffic graphing? No problem.
      Want direct access to all the log files right down to the ATM session layer, no problem, there's a webpage for that.
      Want to restart the line from the BT side, another button to click.
      Want a redundant connection for home use? Erm, only available in certain places but i have a friend in Manchester who is using them to do this.

      If all this fails and you phone them up they treat you like the geek you are, the person you speak to knows what they're talking about and can fix it themselves. (yes I'm looking at you Virgin Media)
      My best experience with them was I wanted to use a Cisco 877 router (completely none standard) for my router rather than the one they supplied. Any other company would have told me to sod off, but these guys helped me debug the setup.

      Nope definitely a company run by geeks for geeks, you get the impression these people enjoy their job and revel in the technology.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    16. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      What does the Drug Enforcement Administration have to do with this?

    17. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Whew. I got off work, drove a hundred miles, got home, and I sit here with my head bobbing this way and that, as I eat some ice cream before falling in to bed. And, you guys have just blow my mind with the lawsuit jigsaw puzzle. I gotta say SOMETHING, but all I can think of is, "Fuck 'em all!" G'night now. Or, G'day, or whatever. It sucks working nights . . . .

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    18. Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? by shnull · · Score: 1

      is that really a surprise ... next generations intelligence is supposed to increase exponentially, xept for the old-skool ones heheh

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  6. Don't see this working by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see this as something a Judge will strike down as spurious rather than an actual loophole - Judges love to come down harshly on people they think are deliberately trying to circumvent the law.

    1. Re:Don't see this working by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I have wifi hotspot open to the world, nobody can say I'm in any way deliberately skirting the law.

    2. Re:Don't see this working by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are only circumventing the intended aims of the people who lobbied the law into being.

      Regarding the written law itself, they are legitimately following and making use of the provisioned measures. It doesn't sound like they are relying on particularly liberal interpretations of the text, but rather are going off of what it plainly states.

      Granted, I don't know a great deal about UK law, but it sounds to me like it's rather more on the legislature want to remove these elements than for judges to sit down and play psychoanalyst of the "offender" and for the legislature simultaneously.

    3. Re:Don't see this working by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An ISP having no customers but plenty of peering communications providers at residential addresses is a deliberate attempt to skirt the law.

    4. Re:Don't see this working by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 1

      They have customers, but these customers are providers themselves. And actually, this is the reality. Lots of people run open wifi so friends and relatives and whoever visits with their smart phones and netbooks and ipads and laptops would feel welcome. Specially in private housing areas where leeching neighbors are not that much of a threat.

    5. Re:Don't see this working by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, if that's the case then all those peering network providers are also attempting to skirt the law.

      I could set myself up as a communicatins provider - I've thought of it actually - put a colo server in a datacentre, then offer bandwidth (and web space) to paying customers. But then, why not simply offer payign customers to use my existing bandwidth that I have at home. Its not much, so I can't see many taking my up on my offer, but as I'm offering a niche product that shouldn't be an issue.

    6. Re:Don't see this working by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They can say that you are deliberately breaking the rule that says anyone providing communications services must monitor and log the usage of that service.

    7. Re:Don't see this working by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Well, if that's the case then all those peering network providers are also attempting to skirt the law.

      The difference lies in intention, and that was the point of my original post.

    8. Re:Don't see this working by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Granted, I don't know a great deal about UK law, but it sounds to me like it's rather more on the legislature want to remove these elements than for judges to sit down and play psychoanalyst of the "offender" and for the legislature simultaneously.

      A case usually has to reach an appeals court before a Judge start delving into legislative/parlimentary intent.
      If a law is vaguely worded, legislative/parlimentary intent allows a Judge to essentially remove the vagaries through judicial fiat.
      If the law is clearly worded, a Judge has no choice but to dismiss and suggest that the politicians fix their mistakes.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:Don't see this working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can say that you are deliberately breaking the rule that says anyone providing communications services must monitor and log the usage of that service.

      My router does that, actually.

    10. Re:Don't see this working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't, at least not in England and Wales, where this legislation applies.

      The overriding objective of the courts is to ensure a just outcome; creative readings of statutes that allow for outcomes that a reasonable person (such as many judges) is persuaded is more just are encouraged. The system is adversarial, though, and many parties do not advance usefully creative readings in the first place, or are out-persuaded by the adversarial party.

      So you're only right if you amend your sentence by replacing the full stop with "to achieve an unjust outcome.".

    11. Re:Don't see this working by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      It’s called crab mentality. You are doing it. Look it up. Stop it. Prevent it from happening.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  7. Lib Dems by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know if what I am saying is 100% correct. But people who might vote for Pirate, Green, ect ect. are mostly geeks or people directly involved in this.

    True, and it is unfortunate that the "geek" vote is being split so badly. The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal). Whether someone's agreement with them on this issue outweighs any disagreements they may have with them on other issues is an open question.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Lib Dems by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know if what I am saying is 100% correct. But people who might vote for Pirate, Green, ect ect. are mostly geeks or people directly involved in this.

      True, and it is unfortunate that the "geek" vote is being split so badly. The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal). Whether someone's agreement with them on this issue outweighs any disagreements they may have with them on other issues is an open question.

      Us Pirates only have 9 out of a possible 650 candidates standing; I doubt we'll have an impact on the Lib-dem vote (hell, as there's no PPUK candidate in my area, I'll be voting Lib-dem).

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:Lib Dems by amw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal).

      They also seem the strongest generally when it comes to following common-sense approach to science; evidence-based policy is one phrase I've heard being banded around as well, which after the various allegations of ministers ignoring their own scientific advisors in the past few months is a welcome relief.

      However, I'm more than just a geek. When it comes to my vote in a week's time, I also have to consider the pros and cons of each party to all the other aspects of my life: my wife, baby son, job, house, local environment, health, personal and moral beliefs, just to name a few. Being geek-friendly is a positive trait, but there are also areas important to me in which the LibDems are weaker.

    3. Re:Lib Dems by Grumbleduke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think suggesting that the LibDems "stood up" to this is giving them a little more credit than they deserve. They ended up supporting it in the Lords and even adding the controversial web-censoring clause (I know they tried to get it removed, but it was too late then). As it was, only a handful (14?) of LibDem MPs turned up to vote, and even fewer made any sort of speech.

      The LibDems seem to want to repeal this mainly due to the method by which it was passed, not for the content; they claim they would "take it off the statue book and replace it with something better" - better for whom? From what I remember of their speeches in the debate, better here may be for copyright owners. This could just mean they want to remove all the loop-holes. I will not be voting LibDem next week - for other reasons as well - because I am certainly not convinced by their "promises" over the Digital Economy Act.

      Incidentally, I'm currently taking an OU law course and brought this up at one of my tutorials (a few days after it passed through the Commons) and none of the other 6 people present had even heard of the Act. The general public doesn't know - while there has been plenty of news in our section of reality, it hasn't been getting out into the rest of the country. Of course, once people start getting threatening letters, this could change, but by then it will be too late. Welcome to the British legal system.

    4. Re:Lib Dems by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      I, as a geek, would vote tory. However, as I've tried to explain to the old ladies trying to get me to vote - I can't as I'm not a citizen!

      --
      This is blinging
    5. Re:Lib Dems by DagdaMor · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't have to be a British Citizen to vote in the British Election, any commonwealth country or Irish citizenship will do.

      --
      All is fair in love and war... ...as long as I'm not losing!
    6. Re:Lib Dems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Guardian newspaper is running a series on the various parties & their approaches to science. So far: Lib Dems, UKIP (gack!) and the Tories. Check out http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/science-policy-general-election, hopefully all the parties will get involved. UKIP responses just friggin' scary! Lib Dems come out pretty convincing, I'd be surprised if any party - other than perhaps the Greens, only viable in one seat - can top their performance.

    7. Re:Lib Dems by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      Even better: the latest pools put the LibDems in a position of either winning or being the king-makers in a split parliement (in fact they might even win the popular vote but get less seats in parliement than other parties thanks to the not-really-democratic system in the UK). This is a huge change since they have consistently been the 3rd party in the UK for 50 years or something like that.

      At this point I would change my vote to them if it wasn't for the simple detail that as a non-British EU citizen I don't get to vote for Parliement in the UK (yet strangelly the HMRC is perfectly happy to take my money as taxes).

    8. Re:Lib Dems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU members too isn't it?

      Guess they need a way to prop up the numbers of people bothering to turn up ;)

    9. Re:Lib Dems by gibbsjoh · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the quirks of UK electoral law is that EU nationals may vote in local and European elections, but not Parliamentary elections. GP is correct as well, as a Commonwealth citizen resident in the UK I can vote in all 3 kinds of elections.

      --
      -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
    10. Re:Lib Dems by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Au contraire, mon ami. (I don't speak French at all, I just heard that somewhere - hope it's not copyrighted!) It's YOU who needs to grow up and get a real job. None of us expects to be paid for the rest of our lives for having some simpleton's daydream that makes it into a song, a movie, or a book. Oh, forget the "mon ami" above. You're an ass, and I don't need asses for friends - there are plenty of pirates who are much more friendly than you are!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Lib Dems by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I believe EU law says that EU citizens living in an EU state have the right to vote in local and European elections, but doesn't give that right for national ones. As a Brit living in Spain I'm (in theory) able to vote in local and European elections, but not national ones. However, I have a postal vote in the UK elections; my ballot paper arrived today, and I intend to send it back tomorrow.

  8. Hmm... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A communications provider is say someone that operates a free Wifi hot-spot and they are immune? And anyone can sign up? O_o Somebody has effectively neutered the entire law. You guys really vote some Pirate party to your parliament to properly put an end to this crap properly tho.

    1. Re:Hmm... by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      Except that they are trying to ban open Wifi too.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    2. Re:Hmm... by dwarfsoft · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oops, link. Forgot my preferences were changed ;). Preview fail.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    3. Re:Hmm... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 1

      I think that was the plan, but it seems it didn't fly. Hence the registration.

    4. Re:Hmm... by tdobson · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm *trying* to get elected!

      --Tim Dobson, Pirate Party Candidate, Manchester Gorton

      http://votepirate.org/gorton
      http://amiapirate.org/

    5. Re:Hmm... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 1

      Too bad I cant vote for you on account of not being the subject of your queen, but good luck.

    6. Re:Hmm... by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A communications provider is say someone that operates a free Wifi hot-spot and they are immune?

      Doesn't even have to be that. The contract for the line coming into my house is with me. My wife and kids use that line, without a contract with the ISP. How could they do that if I - the contracted individual - wasn't providing them with the service?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Hmm... by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      Cosigned. I'd like to see a Pirate Party US movement. It's not like ALL of us enjoy being puppets of those with more money than us. And besides, having a more modern choice would be ideal to my views.

      --
      Sig not found.
    8. Re:Hmm... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      You guys really vote some Pirate party to your parliament to properly put an end to this crap properly tho.

      If by some fluke we do manage to get one of our 9 candidates elected we'd actually have a real voice this time around as the polls show we're heading for a hung Parliament

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    9. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What is funny is that with most decent wireless routers, having a public AP is easy to do too. This way, one can have their own private network that is WPA2-PSK or WPA2-Enterprise secured, but have the bandwidth they are not using open to the public.

      Apparently, this provides both plausible deniability, not to mention the carrier status. IANAL, of course.

    10. Re:Hmm... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Cosigned. I'd like to see a Pirate Party US movement.

      There is one: http://www.pirate-party.us/ I believe the problem over there is that, (unlike here in the UK) you need to register your party state by state & they all seem to have different byzantine regulations. Here you only need to register once to cover all of the UK except Northern Ireland where not even the major parties put up candidates because it has a whole politics of it's own due to historical reasons.

      From what I've heard it's also harder to get on the ballot over there (here any old person can stump up £500 and be put on the ballot at a general election, or in local elections find 10 friends\family to propose him\her and do it for free).

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    11. Re:Hmm... by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      The passage of text relating to that was being discussed a few months back made it look like using WEP and posting the password on the wall would be enough to get around the restrictions, at least as far as cafes with internet access and so on are concerned.

    12. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirates wont get into parliament. The movement has the wrong geography.

    13. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally would vote for you, but am in the Sale/Altrincham area :(

    14. Re:Hmm... by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's very interesting indeed; I live alone, but my daughter and her mother live literally across the street, and they share my (secured) wifi connection. I most certainly am providing a service to them, and they don't even live under my roof.

    15. Re:Hmm... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Does not even have to be that. I provide copyrighted movies to others with file sharing, so I am a content provider as well. Man this is the bestest loophole ever. If you do what they want to avoid, the law makes itself void.

      (Yeah, I could have said sharing Linux distro's. Oh and I do not live in the UK, so other laws apply to me.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:Hmm... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It probably would have been cheaper for you to just sleep on the sofa.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    17. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extremely interesting that BT (one of the biggest ISP's in the UK) are already operating free wi-fi spots for you on your behalf!

      "BT FON is an initiative between BT and FON that aims to give all its members access to wireless broadband wherever they are in the world. This is possible because all BT FON members agree to securely share a portion of their Wi-Fi bandwidth through a separate channel on their wireless router with other members who are in range of their wireless router. These wireless routers become known as "BT FON hotspots""

      BT FON FAQ

  9. Are you polish? Time to test that out... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dzien dobre Janek. Janek jest moje brat (sp?) imje tesz i moje tata tesz. Ja nie mowiem tak dobrze po polsku, jak mali dzieczko tutaj, lol, albo ja mowiem i ja rosumiem duze (sp?). Czesc i ja muszem icz do robote teras (sp?).

    If you can tell me what I just said in polish above? I'll be surprised (but, with a name like Janek? You must be polish I am guessing (possibly Bialo Russ or Ukrainian, but... my money's on polish!)

    From a fellow pole (U.S. Citizen "generation #1" here though, by birth)? Stay cool!

    APK

    P.S.=> Yes, a "wee bit" off-topic here but what the hell... as Tom Cruise said in Risky Business "sometimes you just have to say 'WTF'..."... apk

  10. Come May, I'm quite stuck. by kiwieater · · Score: 1

    This legislation is wrong, poorly planned, and now it seems the implementation could well make it largely useless. This is a Good Thing.

    I'd love to vote with my feet over this in the coming election. However, the lack of substance in the opposition makes this a very difficult thing to do. I fear that a vote for Labour would indicate my support on this matter, and it really isn't the case - I'm disgusted with the manner in which this legislation was rushed through at the end of their term, with no chance for the discussion it deserves.

    Torn. :-(

    1. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Not voting at all, OTOH, is equivalent to saying "You know what? I really don't care who gets in - Labour, Tory, LibDem, Monster Raving Loony, whatever"

      The Conservatives have a strong set of policies but they also have a history of foaming at the mouth just as badly as Labour. If they take office it's more or less guaranteed they'll come down on the side of whichever claims to have the biggest business interests.

      LibDems, OTOH, seem to like the idea of even more taxes and even more bureaucracy... and frankly we're taxed heavily enough as it is, TYVM. Damned either way, IMV.

    2. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote LibDem. They actively oppose the DEB and have a good chance of getting a significant number of votes in this particular general election, which in turn may well mean we finally get to implement Proportional Representation instead of the archaic & downright unfair First Past the Post system we have now, which in turn will mean that parties such as the Pirate Party UK will stand a much better chance of getting elected to Parliament in the future.

    3. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LibDems, OTOH, seem to like the idea of even more taxes and even more bureaucracy... and frankly we're taxed heavily enough as it is, TYVM. Damned either way, IMV.

      Whatever you think of their other policies, the Lib-dems are the only ones proposing PR, vote for them at this election, so that another party that you*do* support can get MPs next time. If we do get PR, watch the Tory party split over Europe, Old Labour split from New Labour and the Lib-dems old Liberal (recently relaunched as the "orange bookers") split from the newer SDP more left wing part. We'd actually get a proper choice!

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    4. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Of course they're proposing proportional representation, they've got the most to gain from it.

      There is another view which says that you inevitably wind up with watered down legislation which in trying to pander to every party doesn't really solve anything. In essence, a true example of "a compromise is what happens when you come up with an idea that doesn't really suit anyone".

    5. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      How would PR allow me to vote for an Individual to represent me and my constituency in parliment?

    6. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Of course they're proposing proportional representation, they've got the most to gain from it.

      IMO it's also the fairest, most democratic system; I really hope we introduce STV for by the time of the next general election.

      There is another view which says that you inevitably wind up with watered down legislation which in trying to pander to every party doesn't really solve anything. In essence, a true example of "a compromise is what happens when you come up with an idea that doesn't really suit anyone".

      The examples of many European countries from Germany and Holland to Sweden and Finland and even the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish regional assemblies show this argument to be false. As long as politicians can be grown up about it PR works just fine.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    7. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How would PR allow me to vote for an Individual to represent me and my constituency in parliment?

      The Single Transferable vote system has larger, multi-member constituencies; the geographical link is not broken, and you can still vote for individuals, not party lists. It's already used in the UK and around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    8. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by heathen_01 · · Score: 0, Troll

      STV is not PR. Would you like to try again?

    9. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      STV is not PR. Would you like to try again?

      Yes it is; from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

      The single transferable vote (STV) is a preferential voting system designed to minimize "wasted" votes, provide proportional representation, and ensure that votes are explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than party lists.

      emphasis mine. What makes you think that it's not PR?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    10. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      STV is not PR. Would you like to try again?

      Yes it is. Would you like to try again?

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    11. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      LibDems, OTOH, seem to like the idea of even more taxes

      No, that's a few years out of date. The Lib Dems in fact plan to raise personal allowance to £10,000. (The sad thing is that I've heard other people criticising the Lib Dems precisely for this reason, that they've moved right economically, and here you are criticising them for the opposite reason!)

      and even more bureaucracy

      Such as?

    12. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course they're proposing proportional representation, they've got the most to gain from it.

      Even if they really only had a self-interest, what has that got to the question of voting for them? You're telling me that if a party was supporting something, that you wanted, you wouldn't vote for them because they gained from it? That makes no sense.

    13. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. "PR" refers to many systems of voting, including the one the OP was discussing. And, since the issue if the Lib Dems, let's see what they're proposing:

      "In Parliament, introducing a "single transferable vote" system of proportional representation, where candidates are ranked in order of preference."

      Would you like to try again?

    14. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      As long as politicians can be grown up about it PR works just fine.

      Oh dear. We're screwed then.

    15. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Their tax policies for businesses are rather less friendly, however. Which is fine if you're an individual but if you run a small business (which lots of people do) is rather less attractive.

    16. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that it's not PR?

      I think we are confusing STV systems. STV != PR-STV. However as common usage of STV is PR-STV I stand corrected. I believe PR-STV is also the system desired by the lib dems.

      and you can still vote for individuals, not party lists

      The Lib dem version of STV would have you vote for parties AND individuals.
      Getting back to my original point, PR-STV does not give me a single MP to represent my views in government.

    17. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      yes

    18. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Getting back to my original point, PR-STV does not give me a single MP to represent my views in government.

      No, it gives you four or five or however many depending how big the constituencies are.
      That means you have multiple people fighting your corner in Westminster, that's surely a better thing. An example; my city is split into 3 Constituencies, if they were merged into one, and 3 labour + 3 Tory + 3 Lib-dems + N others were fighting it out it would be great, Politicians from the same party would have to fight against each other to prove that they will represent you best, but at the end of the day my City will still only have 3 MPs and none of them could tell you to go elsewhere because you live one street out of their area (i.e. I could actually complain to the Labour MP about his parties policies rather than not being able to do much because my Lib-dem MP already opposes them)

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    19. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is, with PR it's harder to kick out an incumbent governments as there's an increased chance of coalitions. FPTP may not be perfect, but it allowed the public to kick out Labour in '79, the Tories in '97 and hopefully Labour in 2010! Under FPTP we can completely kick out a decaying government, something which is substantially harder in PR.

    20. Re:Come May, I'm quite stuck. by Xest · · Score: 1

      So vote Lib Dem because they're the ones pushing for real parliamentary reform.

      If we get parliamentary reform, we don't have to put up with these kind of stitch ups to quite the same extent any more.

      If you're disgusted at the way the legislation went through, as well as the legislation itself, then at least vote against the way it went through by voting Lib Dem, and it's not as if the Lib Dems were the staunchest supporters of the bill to start with in that they were against it being rushed through even if they weren't wholly against the bill itself.

  11. But these laws are carefully considered by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Funny

    Surely teams of experts would have been consulted, and this would have been debated several times in several houses, with considerable thought put into the criticisms of those opposing it! The only way we could have all these silly loopholes is if it was somehow rushed. But why would the government ever do that with such important legislation?

    1. Re:But these laws are carefully considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they?

      Honestly. Who does it benefit? I don't get it.

    2. Re:But these laws are carefully considered by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      They wanted to get the legislation passed before parliament was dissolved before the election.

      Not quite sure why they did this. There was strong support from the Conservative party who are the most likely alternative party to be in power so the legislation or suitably similar legislation was likely to be passed. The best possible explanation is that special interest groups such as those who actually use the internet might have had time to mobilise.

  12. Impractical and/or illegal? by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just looking through the list, I'm not particularly excited by their loop-holes.

    • Ok, I'll accept that this is quite cunning; however, it is basically just shifting the burden. It means that rather than needing n strikes, you'll need 2n-1 strikes (assuming two people capable of signing the subscriber agreement). They will all still go on the list of alleged infringements and any allegations (from what I remember of the debates; can't find the Hansard quote) stay with you for some time, even if you switch ISP. - Ineffective
    • I'm a little worried by becoming a "communications provider". There are over 400 sections of the Communications Act 2003 most of which seems to be aimed at laying down rules and laws for communications providers. I haven't read this Act thoroughly, but I think this will just end up placing a huge burden on the unsubscriber (like the provisions on Data Retention, or registering with the Information Commissioner - that sort of thing). Even then, it could be argued that if you are a communications provider, then you must provide the service to some sort of subscriber (even if it is just you) so then you become the target of all the initial obligations and liable for carrying them out. - Could cause a lot of trouble
    • This hinges on the definition of "allocation". Not sure how well this would hold up in Court (when the ISP is taken to court for not carrying out its obligations). However, it is a good example of what happens when you have an Act "debated" only briefly by people who mostly don't understand the context. - Possible, but might not hold up.
    • Comments to the second point apply here as well. Could work, but will likely be highly problematic for the unsubscriber. Also, this would only apply to some users, not all. - Problematic and limited
    • This was discussed in the Lords (should be quotes somewhere in Hansard) and there was an idea that the copyright notice count should follow you from one ISP to another. It's not explicit in the Act (from what I can see), but could be in the Code. It probably will be now. - Probably covered
    • This seems to hinge on the definition of an ISP. The definition is quite loose, and the three criteria are that they have subscribers (also defined quite loosely), they mainly or entirely provide access to the Internet and allocate IP addresses. The first and third have already been discussed, but the second might work; you'd need to find another primary business for the ISP - i.e. they sell invisible pink unicorns, but you get an Internet connection free with every monthly sale. - Could work
    • Well, this one should be a given. If they receive an invalid notice, they should delete it (or if I get my way, take action against whoever sent it). Of course, what makes it valid will be in the Code. The main criteria would be ensuring the evidence of infringement was up to standards (standards that aren't defined yet) and that whoever sent the notice actually owns the copyright. Both of these could require a lot of effort from the ISP to check. Also, if the ISP doesn't comply with the DEA, under Section 14 (2) they can be fined up to £250,000. This isn't something small ISPs are likely to mess with. Not really a loop-hole

    So, while I am impressed that at least one ISP has thoroughly read through the Act and is trying to work against it, I think their loop-holes aren't going to be that good in practice (with the one exception). Still, their draft Code seems to have highlighted many of the key points, and I hope that they will get heavily involved with the Code-drafting process.

    The best way to get around this sort of thing is to either fight for repealing the Act (so vote Pirate or Green - while the Lib Dems have said they want to repeal it, that's due to the process by which it was passed, they still seem mostly in favour of the content) or making sure that the Code approved

    1. Re:Impractical and/or illegal? by stupid_is · · Score: 1

      The motto of MGM is ars gratia artis, or art for art's sake - sometimes I wonder when this became "art for the sa[k]e of money" (ars gratia divitis, anyone?).

      This article might give a hint :-)

      I agree with all your points, though - we have a sucky system that gave us this Act (and probably many others) without proper scrutiny

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    2. Re:Impractical and/or illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little worried by becoming a "communications provider". There are over 400 sections of the Communications Act 2003 [SNIP] Even then, it could be argued that if you are a communications provider, then you must provide the service to some sort of subscriber (even if it is just you) so then you become the target of all the initial obligations and liable for carrying them out. - Could cause a lot of trouble

      Everyone with an internet connected computer is a communication provider. Would you like me to write the trivial AJAX application that proves it?

      I provide shell accounts for friends and family via a privately owned colocated internet server. Additionally, there's a handful of people with SSH access to a server behind my home firewall and still others with WLAN access. Frankly, none of that is any of the legislatures business. Those who want to send the stasi around and haul me off to prison -- that would simply be validating my contention.

    3. Re:Impractical and/or illegal? by Weezul · · Score: 1

      Did not the European court rule the three-strikes thing was a violation of fundamental human rights? The UK might get away with it only because you can change ISP.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    4. Re:Impractical and/or illegal? by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      Did not the European court rule the three-strikes thing was a violation of fundamental human rights?

      My understanding is that the European Parliament passed a directive that means three-strikes style laws can't operate without judicial process. When Spain started working on this sort of thing, I think one of the Commissioners warned them that it would likely lead to conflict with the Commission.

      At the moment, there is nothing in the Act that, from what I see, conflicts with this - but once the code comes out, this might change. I would not be surprised if, when the powers in the DEA are used for the first time (those under sections 4-16 under copyright infringement, section 17 on web censorship etc.) it is contested and the case goes all the way to either the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.

  13. At least they are trying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Disclaimer: I am a happy A&A customer.

    At least AAISP are attempting to bring to light the shortcomings of the law, as well as taking part in the OFCOM part of the regulatory process. Believe me that AAISP were also attempting early on to bring attention to this law and lobbying as much as they could themselves.
    I've spoken to the owner. He does not believe in supporting pirates, but he does believe in due process and fairness. Things that the DEA is not.(to customers or the ISP's) If a court order is provided AAISP will happily process it, however someone randomly pointing at an IP and saying "they've downloaded something of mine, cut them off unless they can unequivocally prove otherwise" unfairly reverses the burden of proof.

    AAISP just wants to be a neutral carrier, operating within the (sane) law and rightly so.

    They particularly deserve mention on Slashdot as a geeks ISP. There aren't many ISP's that provide the following...

    • Support native (and tunnelled) IPv6
    • Give you real IPv4 IP's _for free_. If you request a /27 they will _give_ you it
    • Proper technical staff on IRC,email and phone ready to answer questions.
    • Graphing and full control of your line from the web.
    • A real, uncensored, non-traffic managed, non-port blocked line (No IWF watchlist here)

    They aren't as cheap as the bucket providers, but then you get what you pay for....

    1. Re:At least they are trying... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Between news and your review, it seems as though I've found my next ISP.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:At least they are trying... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Informative

      one more thing for A&A is that they offer IPv6 across the board, included in your service for free.

      They've always been a more "advanced" ISP in the UK.

    3. Re:At least they are trying... by Fzz · · Score: 1
      Agreed - I've been an AAISP customer for five years now. They're excellent all round, both technically and their service. I've got IPv6 and a /27 static IPv4 subnet. Never see any congestion in their network - pretty much always get the sync rate (minus the headers, etc).

      What I really appreciate is their "no-bull$hit" service. As with any network, occasionally things will go wrong - not very often - but when they do, they're always very upfront with frequent status update. You always know where you stand with them. One time I spotted a routing loop - so nice to be able to send them a traceroute, and have someone clueful respond immediately.

      As others have said, they're not cheap. But you do get what you pay for.

    4. Re:At least they are trying... by simplypeachy · · Score: 1

      If you think the review is good, you should see their Continuous Quality Monitoring in action. That and their staff's BT-bashing boots. I trust no other ISP with my customers. Come join us on IRC! irc://irc.z.je/A&A

    5. Re:At least they are trying... by amb5l · · Score: 1

      I also am a happy A&A customer.

      I had a nightmare problem with my ADSL line (eventually traced to water in an underground junction box), the lengths A&A went to in supporting me to get this fixed were remarkable. For starters, their control panel allowed me to show the BT engineers who were round (often) when my line was dropping or throttling back. These engineers said I had online access to quality of service info even they didn't know about, and were amazed.

      No comparison with the major ISPs - just none whatsoever.

  14. hi by onlinecomputer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best blogger I ever saw.Thanks for posting this informative article. JANICE NOBLER

  15. Remember, the artist gets just 5% of the take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not about artists. It is about big business. The labels, the distributors and the retailers, all of which take a larger share of the money you pay than does the artist sitting at the end of the chain.

    In the UK, the situation is even worse. Who can say that it is fair that the government should take 17.5% of the paid price while the artist whose work it is gets less than a third of that.

    The government works with industry to screw the people. Sadly that won't change under a Conservative or Liberal government.

  16. A&A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew before I read the summary it would be A&A, I've never received better support from any ISP and they seem to work very hard on behalf of their customers. One of my favourite things of theirs is their sarcastic automated responses to BT's ticket system when it aggressively tries to blame problems at their end on the end user's equipment. I'd recommend them to anyone.

  17. Like you said, YANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get back to us when you're qualified.

    Chill Dude

  18. The good thing about a hung parliament... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... is that if we do it properly, we won't even need the whole 6460m of rope. We can probably reuse a few nooses.

  19. House of Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a great quote from one of the senior cabinet bozos talking about "Customer's Interlectual Property Addresses". Pure genius.
    Be glad in a few decades when us web-savvy types are old/gnarled enough to be in p'ltics.

  20. These lawyers aren't that clever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they should have patented these as business processes before going public with them!

  21. LOL! Yea I do, admittedly... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it appears you "passed the test", & per my subject-line above? I do suck @ it, admittedly... it's been a GOOD 40++ yrs. since I learned to read & write it, and that's the story behind that.

    I said something along the lines of "Hello, I see your name's John. That's my brothers name and my father's name too. I speak this language well enough and can write it, but I do understand it well, but I write pretty much along the lines of a small child. I have to hurry and get to work now"

    There ya are!

    APK

    1. Re:LOL! Yea I do, admittedly... apk by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 1

      I said something along the lines of

      No, you didn't. You wrote something so badly, that it is not even understandable.

      Good day Janek. Janek are mine brother (sp?) neme alzo and mine daddy alzo. Me not speaketh that well in polish as smalli keed here. LOL, or me speaketh and me undersdant big (sp?). Bye and me hasz g to worg nof (sp?).

      Yes. that's what you have written.

      --
      #
      #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
      #
  22. We don't vote for Lords by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    I think suggesting that the LibDems "stood up" to this is giving them a little more credit than they deserve. They ended up supporting it in the Lords and even adding the controversial web-censoring clause

    That was one Lord who supported it. It isn't party policy, nor is it the view of any MPs. The fact that the Lords act independently is both the blessing and the curse of the second house. But these is no sense in using the actions of Lords to decide your vote for MPs (whether you view it as voting for an MP, or voting for a party - in neither case do we vote for Lords).

    Yes, that there weren't more Lib Dem MPs turning up to vote against it was a bit depressing. I guess it's a question of checking who your local candidate is, and also seeing if there a better option if they didn't vote against it (who are you voting for then, OOI?)

    1. Re:We don't vote for Lords by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      There were two Lords that pushed for web-blocking. I know it is now no longer party policy (and something I am glad the LibDems sorted out) but it is still important to remember that some of those MPs who spoke out against the Bill criticised the process but not necessarily the content.

      Ideally when choosing who to vote for everything should be checked with the candidate rather than the Party, but the whip system means that we can't really vote for an individual.

      Personally, I am trying to decide between the independents for the general election (my constituency has several "no chance" candidates; a Monster Raving Loony, a couple of 'independents' and a Labour guy) - although I may have to vote Tory in the local ones (to help stop a rather ... ancient LibDem being re-elected). I will be sending out some emails over this soon (most of my candidates have supplied addresses) asking questions about the things that matter to me - I recommend everyone do the same.

      Ideally I would vote for PPUk (and I think questions would be asked of me if I didn't, given my involvement with it and PPI) but I wasn't able to stand myself, and there wasn't an alternate candidate available here. I also strongly advise anyone who cares about the Internet, their privacy, culture, freedom of speech and communication and all those other lovely things to vote Pirate if they are lucky enough to be able to. I know it is unlikely that a Pirate will be elected, but getting votes may be enough to start making a difference.

    2. Re:We don't vote for Lords by Xest · · Score: 1

      The reason to vote Lib Dem is simple, because they're the only ones pushing for PR, and if PR comes into play then the likes of The Pirate Party can have their voice heard in parliament.

      Yes, yes, I know it means the likes of the BNP will get their voice heard but so what? No party will work with the BNP other than perhaps UKIP, and if they do they wont get support from the electorate again.

      Sure it might mean the same thing for The Pirate Party too, but it's still better than the current situation where it'll be hard for them to get any voice at all.

      PR is the real reason to vote Lib Dem, the rest of the political system can be sorted out after that, and this election is the best chance of having electoral reform we've had in over a century, so to throw it away just because some Lib Dem lords made the DEB worse is shooting yourself in the foot. If we don't get a hung parliament (or much less likely, a Lib Dem majority) then you can say goodbye for probably a few more decades to any hope of moving away from the current electoral system where the country is run by a clique of a few MPs easily influenced by the likes of the music industry in each party.

      Look at the bigger picture, vote for the party that's going to best fix the electoral system so that the likes of the DEB and the 3 strikes policy coming to fruition in the way they did is much decreased. You're never going to win on the issue of the DEB and similar with the current electoral system in play.

  23. 21CN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never mind the stupid DEA or IPV6

    The Rev (AAISP) has pretty much single handedly dragged BT's 21CN from "crap" to "almost OK" by doggedly graphing, logging and chasing down faults and showing BT that their network was completely sucky when they *really* did not want to believe anyone.

    Am I wrong?

  24. What about File Hosting services by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    Most of the talk about the Digital Economy Act has been about catching file sharers. The media companies pose as file sharers, log your IP then complain to your ISP. But what about file hosting services like Rapidshare etc? Are ISPs required to do Deep Packet Inspection on everyone's traffic to catch them, or are they currently uncatchable? If so, there will surely be a massive move away from file-sharing over to file hosting services.

  25. Andrews and Arnold ??? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Sounds like Rimmer drinking "liver salts". A particularly unpleasant image. And quite memorable.

    Which is why I remember hearing the name in the past, as an ISP recommended by several occasional contacts in the past, whose opinions I respect. (Daniel, Nikki ; you SlashDotting instead of VA-ing?)

    Have to go and talk to these people.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  26. WoW! I need practice, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't spell well in polish, again admittedly (even though it is far easier to write than English, far less rules imo, especially in spelling) and I, again, admit it. However, it's been literally 40 yrs. since I learned to read or write it (I learned it as I was learning to read/write english in fact due to my parents helping me do so while I was in kindergarden - 1st grade iirc) and I am badly rusty is all, sorry.

    I did try though, lol!

    Man! Based on my crappy performance above, lol...?

    Well - I think I need to hit a few poland chat rooms on IRC perhaps to brush up (and probaby make other laugh their asses off on how badly I write polish now, not that I ever could do it well, because I learned to read and write it when I was 5-6 (but I always spoke it at home growing up, until I was 10 years old or so, with my family)).

    Funny part is, my brother, who is 10 yrs. my junior, cannot speak a word of it, or understand it.

    y sis can, better than I by far on all counts reading, writing, & speaking (she is 5 yrs. my senior).

    However, my parents became nearly totally "americanized" by the time my brother entered this world and we spoke ONLY U.S. English by the time he was born. I remember the "transition at home" occurring in fact, and it probably explains why my younger brother cannot speak, read, or write 1 bit of polish which is too bad I feel actually. He speaks tons of other languages though (he is a Capt. in the U.S. Military with duties all over the world is why), a point in his favor though.

    Anyways, nice meeting you and thanks for the critique!

  27. Mod Janek up guys, he only told me the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line above, and & thanks if you get a chance. Janek only told the truth, as admittedly on MY part? LOL, I do suck at writing polish (very rusty after 40 yrs of non use of it in written form at least, and rarely in spoken form for decades now). I actually welcomed Janek's critique, and if anyone was "off topic"? It was I, not Janek.

    Thanks.

    APK