Slashdot Mirror


UK's 'Three Strikes' Piracy Measures Published

judgecorp writes "UK regulator Ofcom has published details of plans to disconnect illegal file-sharers. It is the 'three strikes' policy which ISPs unsuccessfully appealed against, and it requires ISPs to keep a list of persistent copyright infringers (identified, as usual, by their IP address). ISPs will have to send monthly warning letters to those who infringe above a certain threshold. If a user gets three letters within a single year, the ISP must hand anonymised details to the copyright owner, who can apply for a court order to obtain the infringer's identity (or at least, an identity associated with that IP address)."

150 comments

  1. VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    VPNs will be the order of the day!

    In other news: First Post! :P

    1. Re:VPNs by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This 3-strike deal is just the latest in a series of dumb decisions by OfCom. They are also planning to turn-off the FM radio band.

      No firm date has been set, but they proposed 2018 in their meeting minutes, after which listeners will be dependent upon the barely-functional MP2 DAB (digital audio broadcast). The switchoff of analog television was also handled poorly by these bureaucrats with many citizens unable to receive the new digital channels.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:VPNs by second_coming · · Score: 1

      I do wonder whether the likes of Murdoch had a hand in that to try and generate new customers for his BSkyB network

    3. Re:VPNs by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      Probably not ; it was more like the government saw little pound signs when they thought about all the money they could get from selling off the wide swathes of bandwidth that analogue transmissions currently occupy, and their corporate cronies saw little pound signs when they thought of all the lovely services they could charge you through the nose for that use the aforementioned bandwidth.

      Digital is much more efficient. Alas, it's also much more difficult to produce reception equipment for - there won't be any more kids playing with their crystal radio sets. And it has some other unfortunate properties linked to the codec used for the content.

    4. Re:VPNs by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      This 3-strike deal is just the latest in a series of dumb decisions by OfCom.

      Except it isn't a decision. From the very first line of TFA:

      Today, Ofcom has published an updated draft of the proposed measures to combat online piracy

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, just how long do you expect them to keep up FM and analogue TV? It's a waste of bandwidth. DAB is good, internet radio is good (and probably the future).

    6. Re:VPNs by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Actually, from what I've read, this actually sounds like a fair plan. Getting caught 3 months in 12? Really, if you didn't learn after the first letter, or the second one, and yet you still continue, you deserve what you get.

    7. Re:VPNs by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      Even though an IP address is not a person? You must be new to the internet.

    8. Re:VPNs by ais523 · · Score: 1

      Crystal radios can only decode AM, not FM. FM requires considerably more complex circuitry to decode; it's not out of reach for a hobbyist, but it's not the sort of thing you'd expect a kid to play around with.

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    9. Re:VPNs by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Don't let simple facts get in the way of someones uneducated opinion!

    10. Re:VPNs by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      And that has what exactly with anything at all? They are disconnecting the line and sending the information of the registered owner to whomever. It doesn't say squat about filing criminal charges against the registered owner. You must be new to the english language and reading.

    11. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kids sitting on other peoples WiFi's and downloading will get the wrong people disconnected from the internet and slapped on a blacklist for doing nothing

    12. Re:VPNs by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      And that has what exactly with anything at all? They are disconnecting the line and sending the information of the registered owner to whomever. It doesn't say squat about filing criminal charges against the registered owner. You must be new to the english language and reading.

      You must obviously be new to the basics of the judiciary system... It is pretty clear that if one person committed the offense, only one person can be prosecuted and possibly convicted. If you convict two, one is certain to be a victim of miscarriage of justice, which is a bad thing, both for the legal system (convicting someone innocent is the worst thing that can happen in the judiciary system) and for the innocent person obviously.

      Now, as it is pretty clear to most people, an IP does not in any way identify a single person, it means that you need more in order to narrow it down to a single person before you can begin to prosecute. A search of the computers using the IP may reveal a single person responsible for the infringements or it may not. There might be multiple users of the same account on that computer, or no computers known to be using the IP contains any evidence relating to the alleged infringements. The infringements then might have been committed by an outsider, using unsecured Wifi, hacked Wifi or other forms of illegally accessing the IP in question. Or the IP may be completely innocent of course.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    13. Re:VPNs by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Just bought a years worth, at only £3.63 per month even a UK unemployed person could afford that.

      Screw the governments monitoring, we didn't elect them to act like East Germany's Stasi.

      https://www.privatvpn.se/en/
      https://www.ipredator.se/
      https://privacy.io/
      http://mullvad.net/en/
      https://www.vpntunnel.se/

      VPN reviews:
      http://www.bestvpnservice.com/vpn-providers.php
      http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    14. Re:VPNs by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      You must be new to this world. Registered owners of cars get to pay parking fines and speeding tickets no matter who was driving at the time. Driving offenses aren't criminal usually, don't require the same burden of proof, and the owner is responsible for the actions of those they loan their car to. In SOME cases, you can get an exception. For example, your car was stolen, but the burden of proof is on YOU. Usually a police report stating your car was stolen is enough, but it is your burden to prove.

      Now secondly, after your outburst of irrelevant know-it-all-ism, no where in the summary, or the linked article, or the original text does the words IP, convict, guilty, or even fine appear. So while the bulk of what you said is true, it has nothing to do with the subject. You might as well have posted that it's not right to instantly administer capital punishment for anyone using the letter P over the Internet just because pirating happens to begin with that letter. While also true, it applies just as much as your post.

  2. Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really, really want it to become a trend to deliberately download red-flagged content from IP addresses other than your own. Do it over poorly-secured Wi-Fi, or public access or whatever, but do it to prove a point.

    That seems like the natural activist thing to do.

    1. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Best would be to spoof the ISP's identification mechanisms so that IP addresses belonging to MPs, ISP executives, music and film industry executives, etc appear in their logs.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by slazzy · · Score: 2

      I'm sure this will happen for many reasons, but it will probably lead to more access points being secured properly rather than the law being changed. I think the internet is reaching importance that it should be considered a right that can't be taken away.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    3. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by cpghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These influential guys will be added to a whitelist of allowed copyright infringers. Do you really expect anything else?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget to spam infringement notices to whoever provides the UKRIA & other media groups with internet access.

    5. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You don't have a right to break the laws when you're driving down the road, and if you do it too often, you lose the right to drive. I fail to see how the internet is any different..... in fact I'd say the net is LESS important than a car.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      You don't have to spoof shit, they already pirate shit just the same as everyone else.

      Of course, that doesn't matter, this is only going to apply to the hoi polloi anyway.

    7. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      Hmm, not sure what the hell happened to my link, but I'll try again: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/BitTorrent-Sony-Pictures-TorrentFreak-Hollywood-Piracy,news-13521.html

    8. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The key difference is that driving recklessly is a physical danger to other motorists, downloading of copyright material has zero physical impact.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    9. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could see this being an actual tactic done by a lawsuit-happy movie/music company. However, in that model they would only be downloading their own content, to confirm accuracy of torrent name and get a list of seed IPs.

      Since the evidence indicates this is just grabbing whatever sounded interesting, it should be prosecuted with the exact same vigour as when civilians are accused of such copyright infringement.

    10. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Belay that order!

      These guys, if it ever happens, have their assistant make one phone call, and the whole thing disappears and won't come back.

      Unfortunately, the UK election system is just as fraudulent as most of Australia, Canada and the US ensuring only the "old boys" parties are/stay in power, so activism seems to be their only option. Unfortunately, the next step will be mandating secure WiFi and Ofcom vans will be driving around searching for "violators" (open, WEP), knocking on the door, and offering to secure it for them free of charge (or hand them a stiff fine).

    11. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by queBurro · · Score: 2

      wrong. the right to information and to be represented on tinternet is more important that your ability to get from A-B without taking a bus. using the car analogy tho', you tend to lose your licence (for a finite amount of time) for endangering other people's lives whereas this shambles wants to take away the internet for something as unimportant as copyright infringement.

      --
      sag
    12. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by NettiWelho · · Score: 2

      These influential guys will be added to a whitelist of allowed copyright infringers. Do you really expect anything else?

      Doesn't matter if their IP's get whitelisted by ??AA-organization, because according to the article...

      The plans include requirements for ISPs to “notify their subscribers if the Internet protocol (“IP”) addresses associated with them are reported by copyright owners as being used to infringe copyright”

      You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.

    13. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least keeping track of those whitelists is not the problem of ISPs. This means that copyright cartels have to obtain court orders for a good chunk of influential folks as well, which isn't exactly helping them.

    14. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Githaron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You analogy does not work. If the internet was a road, there would be two types of roads. The first type would be like a normal road. If enough resources, you can monitor who is going where and whether what they are transporting is illegal. The second type of road cloaks all information about the cars except where they are going and how often they travel. With some clever tricks, a lot of this data can be obfuscated and to some completely hidden. If you scare all the illegal activity away from the normal roads, it will move to the cloaking roads that are just as good. In the end, you have done almost nothing beneficial and actually harmed some existing and possible technologies. It also harms those that are hit with false positives. Fighting online piracy is like Wack-A-Mole. Companies would be smarter to uses knowledge about piracy as market indicators and compete with it rather than litigate against it.

    15. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't have a right to break the laws when you're driving down the road

      But you do have the right to due process before they take away your license. That means being convicted in a court of law, not simply receiving three letters accusing you of driving over the speed limit. It's strange to see you on this side of the debate, given how you've admitted that if you received one of these baseless letters, you'd simply throw it out. You're basically saying that you would have no problem losing access to the internet after throwing out the third baseless letter.

      in fact I'd say the net is LESS important than a car.

      I don't need a car to do my job. I do need an internet connection though. And given past posts of yours, I'm willing to bet you also need the internet more than you need your car, if only by a tiny bit.

    16. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, spoof the IP addresses more typically used by their kids. Low-hanging fruit!

    17. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Funny

      Driving isn't a right, it's a privelege. Of course, I'm of the opinion that internet access shouldn't be a right, either. Food and health care? Of course. But internet? One can survive quite easily without the internet, but not without food or health care.

    18. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      wrong. the right to information and to be represented on tinternet is more important that your ability to get from A-B without taking a bus.

      only if you live in an urban environment. where i live 20 miles from town there is no bus. (and it rains much of the years so bike is out) Car transport in much more important for people like me.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    19. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.

      Yeah, but I'm certain it will be a totally different matter for anyone making a false copyright infringement claim against a member of the government.

      You terrorist! You're likely also planning to bomb a tube station!

      (Not you personally, NettiWelho)

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    20. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by ToadProphet · · Score: 1

      You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.

      I wonder what's stopping us from flooding the ISP's with bogus claims, then? Seems like an easy protest.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    21. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      It's not just that there are no penalties. The accused will only get to defend themselves if they fork over a 20 pound fee.

    22. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I order the majority of my food over the internet. Online pornography is my healthcare.

    23. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      wrong. the right to information and to be represented on tinternet is more important that your ability to get from A-B without taking a bus.

      only if you live in an urban environment. where i live 20 miles from town there is no bus. (and it rains much of the years so bike is out) Car transport in much more important for people like me.

      The UN's "Agenda For The 21st Century" (Agenda 21) says you lot should all be herded into a more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored metropolitan center anyways under their "Sustainable Development" plans.

      How else will the government be able to more easily & cheaply monitor absolutely everyone for potential "Thought-Crime"? After all, only terrorists and criminals want to avoid having their every move and conversation watched & monitored by CCTV.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    24. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing that stops this is the proposed claim process, which is insanely complex. It requires copyright holders to accurately predict in advance how many claims they will make, take part in a blind dutch auction over how much they are willing to pay per claim, and the cost of claiming more than doubles if you are claiming against someone connected to the 4th or 5th biggest ISP.

      The does not to allow small copyright holders such as independent musicians, journalists or photographers to pursue actions. Ofcom's consultation shows that the only people pointing this out and insisting that this would be wrong were the Pirate Party UK â" we don't like the DEAct, but if we are going to have it, we want it to be fair.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    25. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have a right to break the laws when you're driving down the road, and if you do it too often, you lose the right to drive. I fail to see how the internet is any different..... in fact I'd say the net is LESS important than a car.

      Tell that to all the families that have lost loved ones to drivers then tell that to all the people that have lost loved ones to someone downloading some software.

      Idiot.

    26. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great info, thanks....

    27. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      That would only be good if everybody did it. Otherwise, it would just be an asshat thing to do.

    28. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously believe that the UN has a plan to make people "more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored"?

      I suspect I may have missed a joke somewhere, but if you are serious, you really need to look into the way the UN works. If you want to take over the world, starting with the UN will guarantee that you get stuck in a quagmire.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    29. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously believe that the UN has a plan to make people "more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored"?

      Well, Agenda 21 *does* call for Western governments to "encourage" their citizens, through laws & regulations, to move into metropolitan/urban centers. That's right in the UN policy documents for Agenda 21. The results would be, whether or not they come right out and declare it as a goal, that the population would be more-easily controlled, regulated, and monitored.

      If you want to take over the world, starting with the UN will guarantee that you get stuck in a quagmire.

      Well, Agenda 21 didn't seem to hit much of a "quagmire", since it's currently part of the UN policies and doctrines. Many US cities and counties (not sure about official State adoptions) are already implementing "Sustainable Development" plans & policies in line with Agenda 21. Many US city websites have links to information about their "Sustainable Development" adoption plans.

      Maybe you should do a bit of research before instantly poo-pooing it.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    30. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More waste of money operations from a useless quango that doesn't have teeth at the best of times.

    31. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a 'tinternet'? Manchester much?

    32. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      What kind of an argument is that? All kinds of things that don't have "physical impact" are illegal, and for good reasons.

    33. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see, I see.

      The net is less important than a car.
      But (assumedly) copyright infringement is an equal crime to speeding.
      So (implied conlusion) copyright infringers are causing more of a problem than traffic-law violators.

      Interesting...

      However.
      0. Internet access is much, MUCH more important than having a car for many people.
      1. Copyright infringement is a lesser crime than speeding due mainly to the fact that speeding implies a greater chance of KILLING PEOPLE whereas copyright infringement arguably has no victims.

    34. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Endymion · · Score: 3, Informative

      The kind of argument made by someone who understands the difference between criminal , reckless act likely to lead a nasty manslaughter, and an act that is simply a civil tort, likely to only incur statutory damages?

      Of course, this "civil-vs-criminal law" being one of the most common distinctions made in all jurisprudence, I'm sure you already knew this... but i never like to accuse random people of willfully lying to blur a political issue, in the hopes of serving some hypothetical self-interest. So I'll assume this is a freak case of ignorance instead. Links to easily cure yourself of this unfortunate condition have been provided.

      --
      Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
    35. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      'You', the individual, not your number plate. They are not identifying you, your car or even a physical number plate, just the arrangements of shared numbers. Basically they are not really requiring proof of anything, guilty until you can prove your innocence against a lowest possible system that is only used monitor use with regards to billings in the dollars per week range which can deny access that can represent losses in the thousands of dollars per week range.

      When 'you' are driving 'your' car and 'you' get pulled over for speeding and the police officer identifies 'you', 'you' get ticked and 'you' have 'your' right to 'your' day in court to defend yourself. Notice all the evidence against you the individual. Now this law is all about the complete opposite, you have not been identified, you computer has not been identified, you modem/router has not been identified, all they have is a log of an IP address nothing more and based upon this purely circumstantial evidence you will now be treated as a guilty criminal without any defence.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    36. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm already there, dude. Been doing it for years.

    37. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You seem to think "rights" mean anything to the average person these days. If you have money, power, and influence, then legal technicalities matter not. If you don't have these properties, then try rocking the boat of those that do and see how far your "rights" get you.

    38. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      1. Copyright infringement is a lesser crime than speeding due mainly to the fact that speeding implies a greater chance of KILLING PEOPLE whereas copyright infringement arguably has no victims.

      Victims of copyright infringement have had their intellectual property raped! How can you say copyright infringement leaves no victims!?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    39. Re:Please, Please, Please start a trend. by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this will happen for many reasons, but it will probably lead to more access points being secured properly rather than the law being changed.

      Actually... Here in Denmark we've had two verdicts confirming that you cannot be liable if you run an unsecured access point, and you cannot be forced to secure any access points. This has led to more unsecured access points as a measure of plausible deniability.

      I think the internet is reaching importance that it should be considered a right that can't be taken away.

      Yes, very much so. That's why the EU court has struck down any attempts at creating a pan-European three-strikes law.

      It should be obvious that rampant copyright infringement should be stopped at the source, not at the destination through abuse of the judiciary system. As the great majority use illegal download to 'fix' to the unavailability of a legal purchase, a simple and efficient fix is readily available: Make the pirated materials available to all that wants them through a legal channel. Stop the format- and geodiscrimination. Make all formats available globally at the same time, no exceptions (no exclusivity for cinemas, PPV or specific countries/regions) - at a decent price. This will instantly reduce piracy with 85-95%.

      Sure, removing the stupid cinema monopoly/exclusivity might be hard on the cinemas, but so far they've been living high on this market monopoly, offing a crappy product we're forced to pay a premium for, unless we wanna wait for alternatives. It is my opinion that they need to shape up and offer a much more competitive product of a much higher quality if they want to stay in business. A ticket should not be more expensive than the DVD for instance. The seats should be nice, comfortable and gum-free. Idiots that disturb the show, use cellphones during the show or similar should be thrown out quickly, fined and blacklisted. And so on. Some cinemas already got this but a lot, especially the big chains, don't. Then people might chose to enjoy a movie at the cinemas rather than at home - because they chose it, not because they were forced to.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  3. New Prank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Troll around the neighborhood looking for open WiFi access and torrenting a bunch of random crap.

    1. Re:New Prank by ciderbrew · · Score: 2

      That's not the worry. Drive around putting files on people computer that you wouldn't want on your own machine.
      I need TIN FOIL!!

  4. Onion Routing by Githaron · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't this make onion routing potentially illegal?

    1. Re:Onion Routing by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 1

      How is that even related?

    2. Re:Onion Routing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, this is about monitoring your ISP, not the TOR proxy network.

    3. Re:Onion Routing by Githaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your computer is setup to act as a node on Tor or another onion routing technology and a pirate uses your computer as a exit node, the pirate's traffic would look like your traffic to your ISP..

    4. Re:Onion Routing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your computer is setup to act as a node on Tor or another onion routing technology and a pirate uses your computer as a exit node, the pirate's traffic would look like your traffic to your ISP..

      Indeed it would, but when your traffic terminates in China, or some other place, who gives a fuck?

      Note: I don't condone using bittorrent thru Tor either. there are similarly designed protocols for that, like I2P.

    5. Re:Onion Routing by Jahava · · Score: 3, Informative

      If your computer is setup to act as a node on Tor or another onion routing technology and a pirate uses your computer as a exit node, the pirate's traffic would look like your traffic to your ISP..

      Indeed it would, but when your traffic terminates in China, or some other place, who gives a fuck?

      Note: I don't condone using bittorrent thru Tor either. there are similarly designed protocols for that, like I2P.

      Someone using BitTorrent over Tor network wouldn't show traffic going through you to China (or wherever the Tor user resides). An ISP monitoring your traffic would see BitTorrent requests originate at your IP address, and BitTorrent responses terminate at your IP address, simple as that.

      When you are a Tor exit node and someone makes a BitTorrent request through you, the actual request to the BitTorrent cloud is made by you (i.e., originates at your IP address) and the response is delivered to you (i.e., terminates at your IP address). At this point, your Tor software running on your system would encapsulate the response that you received and forward it through the Tor network back towards the actual requester.

      Now, depending on whether or not your ISP is monitoring Tor traffic (or all traffic) as opposed to specifically BitTorrent traffic, they may very well be able to see a correlation between your receiving some packet (remember, Tor can be obfuscated) and making a BitTorrent request, and, likewise, you receiving a BitTorrent response and sending some packet. If they're smart and if they care to, they may even put two and two together and realize that you're just acting as a proxy for someone else. However, that's on them.

      Makes running a Tor exit node as a method of plausible deniability seem pretty appealing though :)

    6. Re:Onion Routing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISPs are NOT able to detect BitTorrent traffic if it is piped through Tor as the traffic is encrypted before it leaves the Tor user's PC, unless you're referring to the exit node's ISP of course.

    7. Re:Onion Routing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jahava is referring to when you are acting as a Tor exit node for someone tunneling BitTorrent traffic over the Tor network (for shame).

    8. Re:Onion Routing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to specify if you want to act as an exit node, this isn't something the common Tor runner would have a problem with. Tor also hae an entire section on running Tor nodes such that they cause a user as little disruption as possible.

  5. The pirates are not concerned. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    We have the darknets ready to run.

    1. Re:The pirates are not concerned. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Darknets huh? Is that like Kazaa or Bearshare? I kid, I kid...

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:The pirates are not concerned. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even outside of that, we have old trusty, sneakernet.

      I'm a part of an unofficial club that meets every couple weeks explicitly for the purposes of sharing media with each other. A handful of laptops and external hard drives and we're sharing hundreds of gigabytes of shit in a fraction of the time it would take for us all to torrent it ourselves. We've even somewhat specialized our focus to make it more efficient; I'm the music guy, we've got our movie and TV show guy, our game guy, our PC software guy, our Apple software guy (who's also getting tons of eBooks/eMagazines and shit for us now as well).

      Until we get a fully P2P internet, it's the best option for us to minimize risk.

    3. Re:The pirates are not concerned. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The Nigel. Every school, university and most workplaces have one.

    4. Re:The pirates are not concerned. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      explicitly for the purposes of sharing media with each other.

      So when you're done "sharing" the media in question, you meet again to return the media, right? You're not keeping it because that's not how sharing works.

      it's the best option for us to minimize risk.

      Risk of what? If all you're doing is "sharing", not keeping the media, there is no risk. I've done that. Gave someone a tape to listen to, when they were done they gave it back to me.

      That's what you guys are doing, right?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:The pirates are not concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So when you're done "sharing" the media in question, you meet again to return the media, right? You're not keeping it because that's not how sharing works.

      Anyone ever share a story or a joke with you?

      Did you give it back afterwards?

    6. Re:The pirates are not concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm the music guy, we've got our movie and TV show guy, our game guy, our PC software guy, our Apple software guy

      What about FOSS? Who's your GNU/Linux guy? No sharing of free software, huh? :-p

    7. Re:The pirates are not concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when you're done "sharing" the media in question, you meet again to return the media, right? You're not keeping it because that's not how sharing works.

      Returning something is not a required part of "sharing."

      If I have a box of cookies that I share, I do not expect the cookies to be returned to me by the people with whom I share them.

      Likewise with a bottle of wine, six-pack of beer, bunch of grapes, M&Ms or whatever.

      If I share an idea, or piece of information, with someone, there is, in fact, no way whatsoever to get it back.
      --
      codk

  6. Your Wicket is Taken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Should not it be called "The Taken Wicket Policy"? What is this "Three Strikes" non-sense you speak of?

    Off for a spot of tea...

    1. Re:Your Wicket is Taken by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

      Pip pip Cheerio!

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
  7. False Positives? by mfh · · Score: 1

    What about all the false positives from people who have no clue how to work wifi? Throw away the key! They teased us in school. I'm sorry but it really is a temptation to enjoy this.

    If you want free copyright material, there is usually a way to get it with a magic marker, some duck tape and a deep voice. No jail time!

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  8. Nice language by davester666 · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't that be "alleged persistent copyright infringers"?

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  9. Seems fair by Hentes · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There might be some traps I didn't notice but this seems fair to me. It notifies the accused, forbids the ISPs from sharing the data they collected of them and has due process. Altough if they really want people to respect copyright laws they should concentrate on fixing them first.

    1. Re:Seems fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There might be some traps I didn't notice but this seems fair to me. It notifies the accused, forbids the ISPs from sharing the data they collected of them and has due process. Altough if they really want people to respect copyright laws they should concentrate on fixing them first.

      The problem is, legislation like this might cause the arrest of some people who want to download ALL the movies and such for free. Sure, it might catch a few people who never pirate any movies or music (people who are, as we all agree, stupid morons and deserve to die alone, afraid, and preferably post-brutal-homosexual-rape), but it COULD affect some of the freeloaders. I can't imagine how that at all seems fair.

  10. Good Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISPs should be LRO compliant to ensure YRO. In fact, why not just use the RFC 1130.5 protocol but remove the obviously useless section 5.1.5. Then all that would need to be done is TTLA the WRG on a section 554(b), and let the GNIC handle the rest. Easy peasy!

    1. Re:Good Show by dead_user · · Score: 1

      WTF?! If you are fluent enough in these acronyms to parse that sentence, then you didn't need to read it in the first place.

  11. £20 to appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes thats right, even though it is only an accusation, it will cost the innocent £20 to deny the accusation! telegraph article

    1. Re:£20 to appeal by Githaron · · Score: 1

      The accuser should have to eat the £20 no the accused.

    2. Re:£20 to appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If your appeal is successful, that fund is refunded to you.

    3. Re:£20 to appeal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You could always use Small Claims Court to recover the ï20, plus ï30 court costs and any other costs (time off work to attend the hearing, transport, photocopying etc).

      Of course the moment you are banned from having an internet connection you could just sue to get it back. It will also be interesting to see how the ban is administered. For example if someone moves house will the next person find the address blacklisted? What if two people share a flat, one is banned but the other wants an internet connection? Will it apply to non fixed line broadband, or will the person be able to get a mobile broadband connection?

      --
      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:£20 to appeal by Andy_R · · Score: 2

      One question that Ofcom haven't answered... why would anyone appeal to win back £20 of their own money, when they could sue for libel and receive unlimited damages?

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  12. I have scaped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of stupid laws like that I am glad that I moved out of the country!

  13. A better trend. by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

    End-to-end encryption. Your ISP should should only know what services you are connecting to, not what you are transferring.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  14. What about a home run policy? by ravenscar · · Score: 4, Funny

    For every three strikes policy there should be a home run policy. A home run would be a crime of such complexity and grand proportion that its perpetrators would get off free and clear. The US seems to have an unspoken home run policy that is frequently applied to those who work on Wall Street. The UK has a similar policy in their own investment banking sector.

    So, what would be a home run in this instance? Uploading the top 10 movies and songs of 2012 onto every web-connected machine?

    Of course I jest.

    1. Re:What about a home run policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, what would be a home run in this instance?

      Replacing the CBS web page with a forward to another web page that actually has the entire current season of each show freely available for anyone who wants to catch up. Include links to the Amazon page to buy DVDs of prior seasons, and have non-invasive, passive banner ads above and below the video stream.

      CBS would get some letters thanking them for the new, user-friendly web site. When they eventually fix the hack, they'll get flooded by demands to change it back.

      (I want to see this year's back-episodes of NCIS, not just the latest 4 and a two-parter from earlier in the year!!!!)

    2. Re:What about a home run policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, a 3-strikes rule for government and industry should apply as well. Get caught performing some misdemeanor three times, lose your privileges to conduct business / political affairs. This whole 3-strikes thing could really benefit society, if employed across the board.

    3. Re:What about a home run policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unspoken home run policy that is frequently applied to those who work on Wall Street

      Also Presidents: Andrew Johnson (Impeached & acquitted), Harry Truman (never charged), Richard Nixon (Resigned & pardoned), William Clinton (Impeached & acquitted), George Bush Jnr (never charged)

  15. Re:Prison by PIBM · · Score: 0

    Should have used sarcasm tags at least, just so that no one gets angry for nothing.

  16. Re:Prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not sarcasm, it's a troll.

  17. Re:Prison by Githaron · · Score: 1

    I use it legitimately every time I want to download a new Linux ISO. There is nothing inherently illegal about the technology.

  18. Guilty until you pay up by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can't believe the submitter missed out the worse bit!

    From the BBC News:

    Suspected internet pirates will have 20 working days to appeal against allegations of copyright infringement and must pay £20 to do so, according to revised plans to enforce the UK's Digital Economy Act.

    So now you're automatically assumed guilty .. and can only prove you're innocent after you've paid for the "privilege" to do so!

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:Guilty until you pay up by jeremypbennett · · Score: 2

      But the BBC did note how sluggishly the bureacracy was dealing with this aspect of the DEA. Anyone would think the civil service could see a disaster in the morning (contrary to the popular image, some of the guys at the top are really quite clever). It's taken them two years to do this first consultation and the BBC suggested it won't come in until 2015 (curiously just around the time of the next general election). I am tempted to suggest that the £20 fee has been inserted to ensure public outrage in the run up to a general election, thus ensuring this law will collapse. Surely civil servants wouldn't be so devious in undermining the will of Parliament. Oh yes they would minister!

      --
      jeremy@jeremybennett.com www.jeremybennett.com
    2. Re:Guilty until you pay up by bazorg · · Score: 1

      The original webpage of the Ofcom website has no indication of that cost to make an appeal. They do however welcome feedback on this consultation: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/infringement-implementation/howtorespond/

    3. Re:Guilty until you pay up by digitig · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't believe the submitter missed out the worse bit!

      From the BBC News:

      Suspected internet pirates will have 20 working days to appeal against allegations of copyright infringement and must pay £20 to do so, according to revised plans to enforce the UK's Digital Economy Act.

      So now you're automatically assumed guilty .. and can only prove you're innocent after you've paid for the "privilege" to do so!

      No. After the three warnings, if you don't appeal to any of the warnings, your details are passed to the copyright owners who may choose to take legal action through the courts. The £20 (refundable if you win) is for if you want to avoid having to bother with due process; it isn't part of the due process which is still there. This looks to me to be a big improvement over the existing system where the first you might hear of copyright infringement accusations is a court summons.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:Guilty until you pay up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed - I don't know how things are done agross the pond, but when you appeal a traffic ticket here, you have to post at least part of the fine (depending on how big or small it is, it could be the whole thing) to guarantee you're going to show up. If you win, you get it all back; If not, you just have to pay whatever you still owe, plus possibly a court fee. If you're guilty, you pay the fine and move on, and if you're not you just pay with your time appealing it...

      However, the whole "This IP address got 3 letters in 1 year, so they must be the person who infringed" thing is a little problematic to me. Especially if they use any sort of dynamic addressing. Of course, how they associate the IP to name isn't specified in the article, so they may be doing a better job. But I'd rather see them associate the infrigement with a MAC address (which they should have, after all), which is at least (usually) unique/specific to a single physical device. Not that the people involved in shoving these rules down the public's throat have any clue what MAC addresses are...

      captcha: certify

  19. It's a trap alright by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, the trap is that they could be mislabeling infringing content, there could be content you own that you're uploading/downloading to a cloud service they're unaware of that they could flag, they don't know who's using the computer at the time, nor the IP address really. Could be automated by a trojan for all they know.

    1. Re:It's a trap alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, and you'll be taken to court and forced to pay hefty fees just to prove you're innocent.

    2. Re:It's a trap alright by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      The guy named Alex Jones has been targeted a lot recently with "false positives". Several of his older shows have been yanked because a record company (Warner Bros?) is claiming ownership of all interviews by a man they just signed to a contract. Apparently they believe they have ownership not just to present products, but also previous products 4-5 years old. So the interviews get labeled "copyright infringement". Under this 3-strike law Mr. Jones would now be up for legal troubles.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:It's a trap alright by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Which why there is a court that has the last word.

    4. Re:It's a trap alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently they believe they have ownership not just to present products, but also previous products 4-5 years old.

      So I take it you've acquired a copy of the contract, read it over, and it absolutely positively does not grant WB the rights to those 4-5 year old products? I mean, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass, and we all know you'd never do that.

    5. Re:It's a trap alright by mccdyl001 · · Score: 2

      Not only your legal defence fees, according to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18594105 ) it will cost £20 just to submit an appeal if you receive one of these letters.

  20. How many? by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

    Soon we will see just how many David Camerons, Tony Blairs and Gordon Browns there are in Britain...

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
  21. Back door revenue stream? by andy16666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "...to those who infringe above a certain threshold."

    The sliding window approach allows ISPs to harvest just enough infringers to keep big content supplied with a steady stream of lawsuits with ready-made payouts. Not that big content is suffering in any measurable way from copyright infringement to begin with. The problem with these approaches is that they falsely assume that every download is another lost sales opportunity. The flaw in their reasoning here is that people's pockets don't suddenly get deeper as soon as they have no choice but to pay for content...they just view less content.

  22. Re:Prison by queBurro · · Score: 1

    and eclipse etc., I make a special point of using BT whenever I can for legitimate porpoises

    --
    sag
  23. Re:Prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The technology isn't illegal, just every practical application of it is. People only use it to steal. Don't even get me started on how much stolen crap is in your average Linux ISO.

  24. Very telling by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's interesting when you think about it. The media producers are pushing for the so-called pirates to be punished by removing their ability to pirate or assist others in doing so by uploading.

    If they were truly motivated purely by profit, wouldn't they be pushing instead for massive civil penalties, or perhaps some sort of tax?

    Banning pirates from the internet does little to increase profits even IF you follow MAFIAA logic that every single pirated file equates to one "stolen" sale, because where are people most likely to buy music? Online.

    This leads to several possible conclusions (ranked in order of probability (by my analysis), descending):
    1) The entire music/film industry is basically panicking and is unable to think straight due to the massive upheavals caused by the Internet, and they're lashing out like a scared animal.
    2) They actually do not care about pure profits, but are instead concerned primarily with maintaining control of distribution, making this as much an attack on iTunes as The Pirate Bay.
    3) They are fully aware of how ineffective this will be at curbing piracy, and plan to use this as a stepping-stone to something bigger and worse ("Look, even with the Three Strikes law, we're still making only billions of dollars per minute, we need a law that taxes people by the megabyte to use the Internet because they might use it for PIRACY!").
    4) They're just a pawn in someone else's Evil Master Plan.

    1. Re:Very telling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were truly motivated purely by profit, wouldn't they be pushing instead for massive civil penalties, or perhaps some sort of tax?

      In many countries, they are already getting the tax: Every hard drive purchased includes a tax, which is sent to the music industry. Yes, really.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

      The fines now applied are just double dipping by the music industry.

      Get the tax, and the fine.

      Get it all.

    2. Re:Very telling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about:
      5) All of the above.

      Don't see any of the other points as being completely mutually exclusive.

    3. Re:Very telling by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Erm, Occams Razor says there is a 5th possibility you seem keen to overlook - people who routinely pirate material even after multiple warnings aren't buying music from iTunes nor are they going to, so banning them doesn't cause any lost sales. But people who get caught a couple of times might well go legit.

      Also, they have tried massive civil penalties, but a lot of pirates are poor so that they can't pay. And the legal system is so expensive and slow that it's a poor solution which doesn't scale to the number of offenders. Realistically, relying too heavily on the courts also locks out the little content producers who can't afford the justice system.

      Example: my brother produced a high end sample library for musicians. We used a watermarking technology, so copies that were uploaded to torrent sites could be traced back to the uploader. It worked fine but the plan failed at the obvious point - he could not afford to take the offenders to court, especially as they were in another country (I did warn him about this and recommended stronger DRM, but it wasn't possible at the time). With a 3-strikes system he could potentially have filed a claim, except that apparently the claims process isn't exactly little guy friendly - due in part to the desire to cut down on false accusations and excessive paperwork. The end result is a solution that pleases nobody.

      It's this kind of nonsense that is why I support the development of strong DRM systems. Legal approaches don't work when you have millions of criminals and people who have rationalized it to themselves, to the point where they'll never just pay the creators for what was made. They'll always rip others off and justify it somehow.

    4. Re:Very telling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK Mr DRM proponent. How do you stop your DRM'd content from becoming rental/use only how I say content.

  25. Re:Prison by PT_1 · · Score: 1

    As far as I'm concerned, if you're running BitTorrent you deserve to go to prison. I'm not sure why ISPs don't just monitor for BT traffic and report those users to the police right away. This technology has only ever been used for piracy. I've never encountered a legit use for it.

    a hhttp://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/

  26. ISPs need to pick a side by nashv · · Score: 1

    Assuming they want to retain their customers, this should spark a competition between ISPs to demonstrate , ironically, their incompetence at implementing relevant monitoring processes.

    The next time a lawyer asks them for a user's data transaction list, they should be saying "Oh sure, here is a list of PING request sent from this users connection since January...."

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
  27. Re:Prison by PT_1 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I broke the link. Should have been: http://www.debian.org/CD/torrent-cd/

  28. How about record-destruction and rapid IP changes? by davidwr · · Score: 0

    How about if ISPs

    1) didn't keep IP address records longer than a week or two

    2) For new customers who didn't opt out and for existing customers who opt in, you get a new IP address every time your device tries to get or renew a DHCP-issued IP address. Set DHCP lease times at less than 2 weeks.

    Unless the copyright industry was fast with the subpoenas, there wouldn't be any way to identify who the alleged offender was.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  29. Artists by CanEHdian · · Score: 2

    Don't forget that this is all done to "protect the Artists" (we all know the truth, but most don't).

    It is therefore reasonable to attack the artists that come out in favour.

    The Telegraph article has a photo of Adele. Don't know her opinion, but either they come out against soon or they are presumed in favour (though for 20 quid I will review their case) Boo outside their concerts. Use "xxx Kills The Internet!" Or, organize a public "CD burning" (have some real ones, have a bunch that you printed covers with a quality colour printer). The point is: make it personal. It's no longer the Grey Anonymous Regulatory Organization that is the bad guy. Give them a face.

    But: make sure to not bother those artists that come out against, to the contrary, support them.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    1. Re:Artists by green1 · · Score: 1

      And this is exactly why the RIAA/MPAA and all the similar organizations around the world exist. Their sole purpose is to introduce a separation in people's minds between the companies that make them up, and the lobbying and enforcement done on their behalves.
      The media industry isn't stupid. they know how unpopular this all is, they also know that people are too stupid to link the hated organization to the entertainment people like.

      The only solution is to, at every possible opportunity, point out that this is NOT some anonymous organization pushing for all these evil laws and suing grandmothers and schoolkids, point out that this is each and every individual record label and movie studio which are members of those organizations. Now punish them appropriately, with your wallet.

    2. Re:Artists by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Why is it "reasonable" to attack artists that are in favor of systems to protect their livelyhood? Shouldn't you be attacking the pirates that motivate the creation of such systems in the first place? If piracy was not endemic there'd be no motivation to create such complicated things as a 3-strike system.

    3. Re:Artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not reasonable to attack them for wanting to protect their livelihoods. It is reasonable to attack them for supporting flawed (at best), ill-conceived, and potentially unethical systems that do so. If you owned a club where you sang, and wanted to prevent other people performing in your club, that's fine. But if your rules said that anyone else caught singing in yout club would be thrown out and banned for life, you'd get a lot of people pissed at you (since, for example, singing "Happy Birthday" to your bud when you're having a night out to celebrate would get you tossed). As a more targetted example, let's say someone went to the cops and said "I bought drugs from the person in motel room 12". On the third time that someone did that, the go to the Motel room and arrest whomever is there at the time, regardless of if they were the one who sold the drugs this most recent time, and charge him with 3 counts of selling drugs, whether or not he was the one renting the room the last 2 times. Would you agree with that, or would you say that was unreasonable.

      It's not about whether you have the right to do something, it's about whether you're doing it the right way or the wrong way. Not to mention the fact that changes in technology and society are also changing the definitions of "right" and "wrong", and what used to be considered the right way to do things may no longer be accepted the same way (c.f., the record label business model)...

  30. ID by IP? by cvtan · · Score: 1

    This is sort of like people getting parking tickets when they are not responsible for the infraction. If my 18+ grandchild parks my car illegally, I get the ticket even though there is no proof that I parked it. Things like this happen all the time, but I wonder how. Maybe a parking ticket is not considered a criminal offense like a moving violation??

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:ID by IP? by green1 · · Score: 2

      Depends how the law is written. When the police around here wanted to introduce photo-radar speed traps and red light cameras it actually required the government to re-write the law. The offence you are charged with if you are pulled over for speeding is "operating a motor vehicle above the posted speed limit on a roadway", however if you are caught by photo radar it's actually a different offence called "being the owner of a motor vehicle being operated above the posted speed limit on a roadway" (the latter being added to the law specifically to allow for photo-radar where they'd have no proof of who was driving) The two different offences actually carry different penalties as well, they each carry identical monetary fines, however the former also includes demerit points, whereas the latter does not. My guess is that the law for your parking example is worded in such a way that the owner of the vehicle is responsible, regardless of who drove it there.

      Just wait for another re-write of copyright laws making it an offence to be the account holder of an internet connection where unauthorized copying has taken place. makes it much easier to prove then the current situation where only the person actually downloading the content can be nailed.

  31. UK is officially... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    U$A little bitch...

  32. Re:Prison by Zocalo · · Score: 1

    I make a special point of using BT whenever I can for legitimate porpoises

    Well sure, of course you'd only use BT for legitimate seafood - it's like the Sea Food Association of America PSA says; "You wouldn't eat Flipper..."

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  33. Re:Prison by Uhyve · · Score: 1

    World of Warcraft patches, though yeah, nobody plays that anymore *rolls eyes*. Actually quite a few MMOs are now using their own custom bit torrent clients to share patches instead of having an unneeded patching infrastructure in place. Also yeah; Linux, Open Office, Eclipse. It's a shame that nobody has compiled a list so we can just c&p the counter argument to that common hyperbole.

  34. How about the ISPs grow some balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And tell the media companies to fuck off, by blocking every site owned by any of them and all major sites that they have content on?
    If every one of them done it at the same time, you can bet your ass every single person would complain.

    These idiotic ISPs keep trying to bring up some sort of notice about these things and just hide it it behind 404s or whatever other scrubby methods of denying content.
    LET PEOPLE KNOW AND THEY WILL TAKE ACTION.

    Seriously.

  35. and with a ticket you have the right to court by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and with a ticket you have the right to court and there needs to be a standard of evidence.

  36. Simples by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Download all the crap you want within a single calendar month, then get one letter. Wait 6 months till you need more stuff and repeat, getting 2 letters in a year and not enough to trigger the restrictions.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  37. It's nicely fragile. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

    "Oh you've got evidence that this person was infringing? Well, it's a dynamic IP, so we can't guarantee that's the same person..."
    (a week goes by)
    "Oh right, so you've somehow worked out that it is? Yeah, I guess it does look like it fits a pattern of a single user. Is that definitely copyright-infringing material?"
    (a week goes by)
    "Yeah fair enough, you can apply for the anonymised details. Just sign here... and here... and here... and have your solicitor sign here... here... and, uh, here... Good. And how do you want to pay for that admin fee? Ah, we don't take Amex."
    (a week goes by)
    "Right here's your anonymised data"
    (a month goes by, while the court paperwork gets filed, lost, refiled, buried in a peat bog, posted to Azerbaijan and eventually found in the ruins of a disused hospital somewhere near Glasgow)
    "Oh, the contact details? Sure, just need you to sign here, here, and here... cool, and your solicitor needs to sign here, here, here, here and here... Lovely. Now, how would you like to pay the admin fee?"
    (a week goes by)
    "Oh, the contact details? Sorry, it's run over its time limit and we've wiped them. Would you like me to send out new forms?"

  38. Re:Prison by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    As far as I'm concerned, if you're running BitTorrent you deserve to go to prison.

    I seeded the book I wrote, BT is the only place it's available (unless I email it to you). I also share a few Linux distros, Star Wreck, and movies that the makers want shared.

    I've never encountered a legit use for it.

    That's because you're a fucking dumbass with a two digit IQ who doesn't belong her. Now go away, MAFIAA shill.

  39. Scalable Business Models FTW! by halfkoreanamerican · · Score: 1

    It's only a matter of time before everyone gets banned from the interwebs for 'piracy' and ISPs go out of business. Another brilliant idea. It makes me almost angry enough to move to Papau New Guinea and forget I ever knew about teh interwebs.

  40. Re:How about record-destruction and rapid IP chang by amorsen · · Score: 1

    The ISPs have to keep such records for anti-terror purposes. Terror, child porn, piracy, hate speech, libel... It is all getting muddled together, and a method for dealing with one of them is very tempting to use for one of the others, even if it doesn't particularly fit.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  41. 74.125.237.144 by Kovac.anar · · Score: 1

    I am not a number, I am a free man!

  42. So basically... by Lancer873 · · Score: 0

    If you're going to pirate, download everything you can within two months, then wait until next year?

  43. Bullh$h1t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They couldn't before and they can't now. If you're with Virgin media, simply tell your router to get a new MAC address... voila! a new IP address.
    How can they tell what you are downloading if you're on a secure connection... they can't! (Hopefully)
    Torrents... get Peerblock. F$CK THE HYPE!

    1. Re:Bullh$h1t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The strikes are not recorded against IP. This is what happens;

      - Media company sees IP address a.b.c.d in a swarm at 15:03:24 27-Jun-2012
      - They see a.b.c.d is registered to BT
      - They contact BT with message "Your user at a.b.c.d infringed our content at 15:03:24 on 27-Jun-2012
      - BT checks DHCP logs, sees that Anonymous Coward was given a.b.c.d earlier that day and didn't release it until later
      - BT records 1 strike and sends warning letter to Anonymous Coward

  44. Ah very easy to do LEGALLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Write some stupid song, but COPYRIGHT it!

    2. Upload to some torrent form that wireless IP.

    3. Now download it, from that same IP.

    4. Make a claim about copyright infringement. Completely legal, because your song was INDEED copyrighted, and it was uploaded and downloaded illegally. The IP owner is responsible for the connection, correct?

    1. Re:Ah very easy to do LEGALLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Write some stupid song, but COPYRIGHT it!

      For interest, by writing a song you automatically obtain copyright.

      4. Make a claim about copyright infringement. Completely legal, because your song was INDEED copyrighted, and it was uploaded and downloaded illegally.

      I don't understand what you're saying. It's not illegal to upload or download content to which you have the copyright. Claiming infringement would be fraud.

  45. Re:Prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I'm concerned, if you own a gun you deserve to go to prison. I'm not sure why gun shops just don't report everyone that wants to buy a gun to the police right away. This technology has only ever been used for killing. I've never encountered a peaceful use for it.

  46. time to take an axe to all computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im about to take my computer outside and smash it to bits, then all you people can argue over IP rights.. this that and the other thing, restricting access to software and stuff to the poor since they have no money.. yeah.. nearly ready to take an axe to my computer and never peck another key in my life.

    Then all you morons can get fat typing, while i get fit outside.

    Computers are nothing more then a way to make sure you cant collect on retirement since you will be to unhealthy to make it that long.. think about it folks. We made cars, now we are controlled by them(by not being allowed to have a few beers and drive, insurance extortion etc), we made computers now we are being controlled by them.. everything good gets ruined by greed.

    This planets basically fu*&ed, im actually just ready to kill myself face down so you all can kiss my ass cause my passion is near gone for humanity.

  47. Hoisted by their own petards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long do you think it will take to find that someone behind the firewall at Sony, EMI, etc... (in the UK) has downloaded something they shouldn't have?

  48. How do I get a strike? by coofercat · · Score: 1

    How do I get the first of my three strikes? Please provide links ;-)

    (Absolutely seriously, how does the ISP know what to log, and what to is infringing, and what thresholds, etc?)