Slashdot Mirror
Ofcom Unveils Anti-Piracy Policy For UK ISPs
krou writes "Under plans drawn up by Ofcom, UK ISPs are going to draw up a list of those who infringe copyright, logging names and the number of times infringement took place. Music and film companies will then be allowed access to the list, and be able to decide whether or not to take legal action. '"It is imperative that a system that accuses people of illegal online activity is fair and clear," said Anna Bradley, chair of the Communications Consumer Panel.' The Panel, in partnership with Consumer Focus, Which, Citizens Advice, and the advocacy body the Open Rights Group, has released a set of principles it believes should govern the code of practice. The principles say sound evidence is needed before any action is taken, consumers must have the right to defend themselves, and the appeals process must be free to pursue. The code shall come into practice by 2011, and initially applies only to ISPs with 400,000 customers or more." Update: 05/29 09:11 GMT by T : As an anonymous reader points out below, that's 400,000 users, rather than 40,000 as originally rendered.
Im just curious on how it is illegal to download content that is copyrighted.
I understand being prosecuted for uploading content to the internet but am I breaking the law if I watch something on youtube that was placed there illegally? Or if someone emails me a photo and they do not have the rights to it?
I'm pretty certain when I take a photo of my girlfriend in the city there is something in the background that I dont have the copyright of. If I post that on facebook am I doing something illegal?
Seriously I feel like no matter what I do Driving, browsing the internet, or taking photographs I feel like at any given moment I'm breaking the law and just waiting for it to be my turn to get caught doing something idiotically illegal.
Music firms and movie studios can request details from the list so that they can decide whether to start their own action against serial infringers.
If music firms and movie studios can request such information i hope it is available to the account holder as well.
I imagine a large percentage of 'serial infringers' will be under age and living at home. Parents - and all account holders - should have access to this information if they and going to be handed on a platter to music firms and movie studios.
Indeed, why don't torrent sites and trackers already run over https? Wouldn't that kill this idea entirely, plus any other ISP-based snooping?
What's to stop anyone getting access to this list?
I'd be more worried about what's recorded in that list - I don't read anything in the article that says person-identifying data is hidden / kept in a separate, inaccessible list until a court orders such data be handed over.
If all details are free for checking by 3rd parties, that would mean they could get private and/or identity data without any involvement of a court. Basically sidestepping any legal checks & balances. That is bad for many reasons. And of course once they have such data, they have it, period.
IMHO, ISP's should only turn over private/identity data on direct order of police/intelligence authorities in acute, life-threatening cases (terrorism, kidnappings, that kind of thing). For non-lifethreatening cases, anyone fingered should be able to defend themselves, and a court deciding, before the other party gets private details. Anything else should be regarded as careless handling of customer data on the part of the ISP. And I wouldn't want to be a customer of an ISP that handles private data (mine or anyone else's) carelessly.
Just make sure all your windows are closed when you play the radio in your car and you should be OK.
No sig today...
Do you know why train stations are usually at the outskirts of towns? Nooooo, not because of the steam engines causing so much pollution. You're kidding? Back when these things were fashionable, the average steel mill in the middle of the town blew more black smoke constantly into the vicinity than the occasional train possibly could.
The reason is that hackneys and cabs were fearing that they'd go out of business. They immediately noticed that they will (and did quickly) lose all the business between towns. Nobody wanted to be transported like cargo when they can sit comfortably in the "luxury" of a train waggon. So they campaigned and clamoured, citing the most impossible and unbelievable dangers and threats of those horrible machines (look it up, some are quite entertaining. Like claiming that just watching "zip" by at that breathneck speed of 40 mph will send people into seizures and a delirium furiosum and that train tracks have to be shielded off so nobody gets to see these trains) until the politicians caved in and put the stations at the edges of towns, to protect their failing business.
Of course the whole deal completely floundered when cars started to become the next big thing (and again, accompanied by similar ridiculous laws, like requiring a man with a lantern running in front of the car to warn others). But by then the train stations were already at the outskirts of towns, and of course they stayed there because by then nobody wanted to spend the money to lay tracks through the growing towns.
A perfect example how an outdated business model keeps progress at bay with harebrained claims and artificial scaremongering. People don't want to adapt. That's nothing new. And companies even less so. Who likes to change his job? But standing in the path of progress for the sake of retaining your comfy job makes you nothing more than a sponger. You contribute nothing to the progress and expansion of the economy but you leech off it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I also think it may be an example of "copyright theatre" - OFCOM is seen to "do something" which in reality has very little effect on anything at all, and - crucially - puts the legal ball in the copyright holders' court. You wanna sue somebody you suspect of downloading your movie? Go ahead and have lots of fun proving it, just don't complain that OFCOM got in your way.
It just could be an example of some crafty legislation to get the crazy music and recording industries off the government's back while actually protecting the voting public. Nice!
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
I want a copy so I can sue for slander if I'm on it.
I'd say they worked out pretty well, since their activity led to the Anglo-Irish Treaty that put an end to British rule on Eire. ;)
Or do you believe the Brits would have folded tents and run if the Irish had come to them begging for a little freedom pretty please? Those who have the power and know it, see absolutely no need to come to the negotiation table. Why should they? They can only lose. They must be forced to negotiate - or to capitulate - by the use of force.
Right now the media industry knows it has the power: it has the politicians in their pockets, it can bully entire states into changing their laws (see Sweden), it has the economic and legal power to blackmail and extort thousands of citizens with either the indifference or the complicity of the State.
To force them to negotiate or, better, to defeat them no amount of technological savvy can avail us. They have more assets that we have, and they can make any technical countermeasure illegal by simply buying a new law. Where does cryptography help you when you can be forced to reveal your passwords or go to jail? And it will become worse.
The only thing that can turn the tide now is to put fear into them: fear for their lives, fear for the lives of their families. Outlaws do not obey laws by definition, so no law bought by them will save their hide. We'll see if they value their money more than they value their lives.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
They tried a similar stunt here. Only that the town decided to give them the finger and build the train to the airport. Taxis went on strike. So the town ran the public transport round the clock. You had to buy extra tickets for the "Nightline" and they were more expensive than the ordinary tickets, but still, where do you get by cab for 4 bucks? The people were happy, and, and that's the funny part, so was the town because the whole deal was actually profitable. The cab union caved in but the town decided to keep the night busses and trains running. Oh, and thanks for supplying us with that great idea, dear Union.
Never again they went on strike...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We get past this by recognizing that the real value of those physical objects (CDs, DVD's, etc) is in the speech they contain. The object and the speech were separate things all along, it's just that we now have advanced to the point that everyone can easily interact with them separately. It should still be wrong to steal the physical object, and should still be wrong to censor someone repeating the speech that they heard.
Unfortunately, there will be a lot of resistance to this idea since the physical object without the speech is worth nothing, while the speech without the physical object retains all of its value. It will no longer be possible to make money by selling the speech and the object as one thing.
Publicly accusing people of criminal behavior without the ability to prove it is slander, and can get you sued. If a British soldier serving in Afghanistan is put on that list then most people would accept that as preponderance of evidence that he didn't do it and therefore was (published list) slandered. The fact that the internet account is in his name on not the (pirate) kids is irrelevant to the accusation of slander because the ISP said it was the guy not the family. This is the sort of liability that will give ISP's cold feet about this whole plan very quickly as shareholders get very upset over risk without profit.