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.

8 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Piracy clarification by Rivalz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Piracy clarification by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even if you have a complete list of all files that are copyrighted and require a license to distribute, it becomes hard. For example, my publisher and I frequently exchange files that are illegal for most people to distribute, but not for us because one of us owns the copyright. This system would be required to spot when two people exchange the file, determine that it is copyrighted, and then note that we are the copyright owners and so are legally able to distribute it so should not go on the list.

      Requiring a system to do two impossible things is generally considered a case of bad specification design.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Piracy clarification by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is just some ISP's PHB having a wet dream after being wined and dined by the RIAA. It's going to be impossible to put into practice. I've heard the boss of Spain's leading ISP ranting about this sort of thing and he's a barely coherent old codger who obviously doesn't have a clue about anything technical.

      As a protest we should create a screen saver which maxes out an Internet connection 24/7 transferring random data to random people. Get your friends to install it ... let's see if the ISPs who sign up to these schemes can provide the bandwidth they've sold.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Piracy clarification by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't make out the bandwidth. Create 400 byte segments of copyright works - small enough to count as quoting for the purpose of fair dealings law. Have the screensaver exchange these segments. Make sure it's the same segment in each direction, so there's no possibility that they're building anything close to a complete work. Also have it join a few thousand random torrents selected from some popular torrent site, but not transfer any data to any of them. Look as suspicious as possible, but without actually breaking any laws. Don't stress the normal Internet infrastructure, but put a huge load on the monitoring stuff. If you get any legal action, get the FFII to sponsor a countersuit for barratry.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Piracy clarification by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Morally disgusting? I don't know. Here in the US, our ancestors started shooting at Englishmen who were just enforcing the law, collecting exorbitant taxes. Morally disgusting? Maybe it IS time for some Englishmen to start offing those corrupt bastards for imposing what amounts to exorbitant taxes. Call it a "sin tax". If you enjoy it, you've got to pay for it, over and over and over and . . .

      --
      "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
  2. Re:How? Passive traffic analysis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  3. Just make sure.... by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just make sure all your windows are closed when you play the radio in your car and you should be OK.

    --
    No sig today...
  4. Re:That's fine... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.