Slashdot Mirror


For Now, UK Online Pirates Will Get 4 Warnings -- And That's It

New submitter Tmackiller writes with an excerpt from VG247.com: The British government has decriminalised online video game, music and movie piracy, scrapping fuller punishment plans after branding them unworkable. Starting in 2015, persistent file-sharers will be sent four warning letters explaining their actions are illegal, but if the notes are ignored no further action will be taken. The scheme, named the Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (VCAP), is the result of years of talks between ISPs, British politicians and the movie and music industries. The UK's biggest providers – BT, TalkTalk, Virgin and Sky – have all signed up to VCAP, and smaller ISPs are expected to follow suit. VCAP replaces planned anti-piracy measures that included cutting users' internet connections and creating a database of file-sharers. Geoff Taylor, chief executive of music trade body the BPI, said VCAP was about "persuading the persuadable, such as parents who do not know what is going on with their net connection." He added: "VCAP is not about denying access to the internet. It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice." Officials will still work to close and stem funding to file-sharing sites, but the news appears to mean that the British authorities have abandoned legal enforcement of online media piracy. Figures recently published by Ofcom said that nearly a quarter of all UK downloads were of pirated content." Tmackiller wants to know "Will this result in more private lawsuits against file sharers by the companies involved?"

143 comments

  1. Illigal or not? by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article starts off saying that they have been decriminalised, but then the government is still calling them illegal and apparently more people might be sued over this "decriminalised" behaviour. So what exactly is the stare of the legality of pirating in Britain?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Illigal or not? by Grantbridge · · Score: 2

      It's never been criminal. But breaching copyright could get you sued by the copyright owner. The new system of warning letters is replacing a proposed "3 strikes" system where you would lose your internet access after 3 warnings, but with no accountability for being accusing of copyright infringement this was a stupid system.

      The new one is simply sending warning letters to let people know they have been reported as infringing copyright, and so might want to be careful to avoid being sued in the future.

    2. Re:Illigal or not? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It means it's still illegal, but the government has no interest in enforcing that law. It's going back to just a civil matter, between the copyright holders and the copyright infringers.

    3. Re:Illigal or not? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the criminalisation of IP infringement, it just makes the first step towards closer government interventions.

      http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforc...

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Illigal or not? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Interestingly a cursory reading of the relevant law suggests that it's only supplying IP-infringing goods that is a criminal offense in the UK; being a recipient is at most a civil offense.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Illigal or not? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Being sued in Britain is less of a worry than the US though. They would have to actually prove damages rather than just prove infringement. Unless they somehow manage to argue that a person is responsible for any and all copies and descendents of the original, this will be a fairly modest amount.

      If someone ended up having to pay £200 or so for illegally distributing a £10 movie to 20 people I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy for them.

    6. Re:Illigal or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's still a tort, aka civil violation. It means you can't be arrested for it, and that someone has to proactively go after you (as a plaintiff), not just make a complaint and let the state prosecution do the work. It also means that the plaintiff can seek compensatory and punitive damages, but they can't put you in jail.

    7. Re:Illigal or not? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Of course you have to actually show up in court on the relevant days, having filed the appropriate motions and paid the appropriate fees, to make the case that "no, I'm not responsible for any and all copies and descendents of the original". Otherwise the people suing you win by default. And then maybe at the end you can recover your fees again, and if you are very very lucky, the cost of your time.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Illigal or not? by Albanach · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's never been criminal.

      Are you a lawyer in the UK? The Crown Prosecution Service say that deliberate infringement may be criminal.

      The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 also lists criminal penalties such as those copied below. It might be worth getting competent legal advice given jail time is a pretty significant punishment.

      (2A)A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
          (a)in the course of a business, or
          (b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
      commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.

      (4A)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—
          (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both;
          (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

    9. Re:Illigal or not? by Grantbridge · · Score: 1

      OK, I was referring to downloading a film. If you upload and seed a film the day before release, you could get prosecuted under 2A(b).

    10. Re:Illigal or not? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2

      It means it's still illegal, but the government has no interest in enforcing that law. It's going back to just a civil matter, between the copyright holders and the copyright infringers.

      Nitpic: It does not mean they have no interest in enforcing the law, it means that the government realises that the law is un enforceable however much they'd like to enforce it. In future you will get four warnings and then, by the sound of it, you can pirate download all you want as far as the govt. is concerned. They'll probably still be going after large scale distributors and facilitators. This also means that UK courts will in future be choked beyond capacity with civil suits against copyright infringers. So this is a (kind of) victory for the pirate 'community', it is a victory for the public at large because of the precedents cutting off internet connections etc. would have set but bad news for anybody who needs the legal system for other kinds of lawsuits.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    11. Re:Illigal or not? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Maybe the warnings issued could be used by the IP holders in civil court. Perhaps there should be a fast track IP infringement court.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re:Illigal or not? by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Even after release, because it means less viewers in movie theaters and less DVDs sold later on...

    13. Re:Illigal or not? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "The new one is simply sending warning letters to let people know they have been reported as infringing copyright, and so might want to be careful to avoid being sued in the future."

      They should offer a seedbox in Tonga in the same document.
      At least they would see _some_ money.

    14. Re:Illigal or not? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If I was in the position of a copyright-dependent industry body right now, I'd be looking into ways to apply ISPs into doing some of the enforcing. There should be some common ground to work on: Pirates suck up a ridiculous amount of bandwidth.

    15. Re:Illigal or not? by biodata · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think this would be difficult to prove. All experience in the music industry seems to indicate the opposite, that people who listen to music shared by their peers are MORE likely to buy it later than those who don't.

      --
      Korma: Good
    16. Re:Illigal or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirates suck up a ridiculous amount of bandwidth.

      Everybody's using less than the Netflix junkies.

    17. Re:Illigal or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirates suck up a ridiculous amount of bandwidth.

      Yeah, and we pay for it just like the next person. If your ISP is oversubscribed then you should take it up with them and not with those people who try to use all of what they pay for.

    18. Re:Illigal or not? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's what a lawyer is for. So it's his time and his time costs your money, which is far easier to get back.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Illigal or not? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Soon they will be called Undocumented Owners. Then they get immunity. Problem solved.

    20. Re:Illigal or not? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      I think this would be difficult to prove.

      Since when do they have to prove anything? You're guilty unless proven innocent. As far as I know, they don't even have to prove that a single sale was 'lost' in order to be able to sue you.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re:Illigal or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor nitpick - in UK law there is only a 'plaintiff' in criminal proceedings. In a civil proceeding it's 'claimant'.

    22. Re:Illigal or not? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Getting the ISPs to do the enforcement is not the way forward as the "pirates" are the ISPs' customers (after all, they're the ones who are more likely to pay for the fastest connections).

      It'd be like getting car manufacturers to enforce traffic violations.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    23. Re:Illigal or not? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Not if you can demonstrate that some of those pirates consume so much bandwidth they actually cost more than their subscription fee.

    24. Re:Illigal or not? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      A lot of the quicker internet packages in the UK are "unlimited", so people are paying for whatever bandwidth they use. I'm with Virgin cable and they do specify that they throttle "excessive" usage during the day (which they count as peak time) after you use too much. However, outside of those times, you get full speed with no limits, so it's pretty easy to specify bandwidth limits for torrents during the day so you don't get throttled.

      If we can't download quick enough, then we can always pay more for a quicker connection, which is why heavy users are good customers for the ISPs.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    25. Re:Illigal or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, that's the sort of argument that comes down to how good a lawyer you can afford.

      You think your pockets are deeper than the publishers'? Go ahead and try it.

    26. Re:Illigal or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon they will be called Undocumented Owners. Then they get immunity. Problem solved.

      So much epic win!

    27. Re:Illigal or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was in the position of a copyright-dependent industry body right now, I'd be looking into ways to apply ISPs into doing some of the enforcing. There should be some common ground to work on: Pirates suck up a ridiculous amount of bandwidth.

      Actually by comparison of the wider internet usage, Piracy only takes up about 1% of overall usage. Financial Trading & streaming services such as Youtube & Netflix are the resource vampires you should be pointing your finger at

    28. Re:Illigal or not? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 0

      Even after release, because it means fewer viewers in movie theaters and fewer DVDs sold later on...

      </nazi>

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  2. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope so - somebody needs to stop freetards running amok with other people's hard work

    sue me.

  3. 4 warnings per? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is this 4 warnings per ISP, per year?

    It seems to me that there should be a cycle date, because users may go through different ISP's at some point, or have new friends/roommates/parents that don't give a royal **** about filesharing.

    Personally I nag my parents every time I visit because I've seen all the pirated stuff they have. If it was ever available to buy or VOD, then I make the same kind of Frustrated Marge "hgrnnnmmm" noise, when the "Homer's" in my family pirate things.

    1. Re:4 warnings per? by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Funny

      They send you a letter with 4 warnings inside.

    2. Re:4 warnings per? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A per year quota that uses your details as the only unique information? Your address, isp can change but the count stays with you as the person who signed up with that isp and ip as found.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:4 warnings per? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've set up a FlexGet job for my mum's IMDB account, so she can add what she wants to watch. Then it gets automatically downloaded for her. Oh, yeah, downloading for private use is _legal_ where I live.

      But by all means, go ahead with the police state approach to the whole thing. I'm sure the crooks^h^h^h^h^h^h publishers will win their War on the People, or what ever they're up to, some day.

    4. Re:4 warnings per? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      You obviously dont use a UK ISP - they send you an email with 4 identical attachments - using the broadband service they have just disconnected "by accident"

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    5. Re:4 warnings per? by v.+Konigsmann · · Score: 1

      Your parents should be proud to have such a good daughter.

  4. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed.
    No more blackmail settlements, no more blanket anonymous lawsuits, no more copyright trolls.
    Somebody needs to stop those freetard publishers running amok with other people's hard work.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  5. So the idea is that.... by thieh · · Score: 1

    If people are illegally sharing stuff, then get 4 pieces of paper, print stuff with ink, and mail it to them? Why bother wasting the ink, paper and postage to send the letters if no further actions are to be taken?

    1. Re:So the idea is that.... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      RTFS? It says that in the summary. The goal here is to alert people who don't know their internet connection is being used for piracy and who aren't OK with freeloading, parents being the given example.

    2. Re:So the idea is that.... by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they can turn around in a few years when this is normalised behaviour and say "Hey, isn't it ridiculous that we know who all these inveterate pirates are, but we aren't doing anything? Maybe we should pass a simple law that fines them a few hundred quid, that's not much of a problem, is it?"

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:So the idea is that.... by rmdingler · · Score: 0
      Because your government overlords are willing to be mistaken, out of line, morally repugnant, and regularly wasteful.

      What they are ultimately incapable of is remaining benign, since this "issue" is important to some voter or campaign contributor.

      Something must be done.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:So the idea is that.... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Because parents in 2014 are cavemen who don't know how technology works.

      A simple phone call would be better. You get confirmation that the warning has been received and understood, you don't waste paper and you don't waste energy moving that piece of paper around.

    5. Re:So the idea is that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're a parent. Which are you more likely to listen to?
      1) A robo-letter addressed and stamped by the government
      2) A robo-call that requires listening for more than half a second once you realize it's a robot

      If you're worried about waste and efficiency, then you go down the rabbit hole of
      3) They should just send an email
      4) They should just send nothing
      5) They should just repeal those stupid laws and let crowdfunding fill the void.

    6. Re:So the idea is that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah right. Like anyone would listen to some twit on the phone waffling on about copyright.

      They'd just get told to f*** off and the phone would be slammed down after about 5 seconds. Same as happens to all the other scammers.

      Nobody with a brain ever listens to any sort of phone spiel any more.

    7. Re:So the idea is that.... by RoninRodent · · Score: 2

      Because the warnings will be stored in a database. A few years down the line they can then try stealthing something into law and at that point they have a nice big database full of confirmed pirates to monitor closely until they catch them and wallop them with huge fines. Remember we have the pr0n filters now and even folks who opt-out still go through the filter but it doesn't block the connection. It isn't a great leap to hook that up to a list of known pirates and flag up each time one of them goes to a torrent site, sports streaming site or something similar. Why block sites when you can have an automatically generated list of everything a pirate downloads? VCAP is just groundwork.

    8. Re:So the idea is that.... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Show me one parent who gives a shit about copyright. If a letter comes with contents to the ring of "you might be sued for billions and billions", at least it will turn the older generation against the overreaching copyright too...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:So the idea is that.... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If people are illegally sharing stuff, then get 4 pieces of paper, print stuff with ink, and mail it to them? Why bother wasting the ink, paper and postage to send the letters if no further actions are to be taken?

      Yeah, they should save the paper, ink, and postage costs and distribute the letters through Bittorrent instead.

    10. Re:So the idea is that.... by Cardoor · · Score: 2

      excellent point. selective enforcement of laws is a dangerous policy.

    11. Re:So the idea is that.... by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      You only get confirmation if you use a live telephone operator. The labor fees would cost a fortune; mailing letters is much cheaper. You could do robo-calls, but there's going to be some kind of cost associated with that as well.

    12. Re:So the idea is that.... by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      "slammed down"? But...how can I slam the phone down if I'm on a cell? ;-) Seriously though, there's something just... unsatisfying... about hanging up on a scammer (or just anyone you're pissed off at) when all you can do is press a button to cut them off.

    13. Re:So the idea is that.... by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      No one honestly believes that they will get sued for billions and billions.

    14. Re:So the idea is that.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wait 'til the big networks pick up the story.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given a choice, do you tell your daughter to carry condoms? Or to not be a whore?

  7. Translation by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Geoff Taylor, chief executive of music trade body the BPI, said VCAP was about "persuading the persuadable, such as parents who do not know what is going on with their net connection." He added: "VCAP is not about denying access to the internet. It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice."

    We could not get file sharers drawn and quartered, so we are going to spin the decision that we fought kicking and screaming to our advantage and make us look better than we really are.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  8. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by gunner_von_diamond · · Score: 1

    somebody needs to stop freetards running amok

    That just made me laugh! Freetards...Classic!

  9. Warnings are discoverable ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... in litigation.

    In court, a person could not use the, "Gee ... I didn't know," defense.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by timrod · · Score: 1

      I would hope that the recording industry worldwide has learned from the example of the MAFIAA, where judges started throwing out their massive fishing-expedition style lawsuits against hundreds of John Does based on the flimsiest of proof. The courts in the United States have made it clear that it is not their job to help the MAFIAA make a profit, and I would hope that judges in the UK rule the same way.

    2. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes the 4 letters show a history of infringement and the isp's can show bandwidth use too. Its the legal cover for the hard part of traditional cases for free via a stored database of letters sent.
      Some nice political cover and colour of law. They only want to educate you with warnings.
      Its the lawyers that take the final step to seek an identity. The gov and providers can walk away from any long term logging questions. Months of stored logs are just for the 4 letter compliance.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not for free. The industry is paying ISPs £750,000 one off + £75,000 per year. The ISPs have to pay £250,000 towards it and £25,000 per year.

      I'd be amazed if they even ever see a return on that investment. As someone else pointed out in the UK you don't get the absurd escalation of penalty costs in court that you do in the US, you actually have to prove damages and only get actual damages. Even if they do litigate that amount they'll gain from doing so would be so small it wouldn't cover the cost of staff time in collating the information to be sent to the lawyers, even if the lawyers fees themselves were covered.

      I really don't think this will achieve anything other than getting a few kids told off by their parents.

    4. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Thats a lot of cash to just spend on letters and a database. The letters get tracking and logging started within a legal gov framework. Someone seems to see a long term plan with the letters and logging funding. The chilling effect of just knowing your in a database and all your net use is been reviewed? Interconnected local databases? A digital version of the classic anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) at a 'community-based level?
      That could see a vast network of watching, logging, reporting and costly face to face meetings with some 'injunction' that flows to a criminal offence if breached.
      A lot of free support from tax payers for a new more very local ACTA :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by biodata · · Score: 1

      So they are going to pay extra to have proof that the letter was delivered, and to whom? What a giant waste of our money.

      --
      Korma: Good
    6. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll also have to prove that the person the letter was addressed to was doing the sharing personally.

    7. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe then the "sorry, I don't read spam" defense?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I hope this results in two things:

      1. More people use a VPN to block ISP monitoring.

      2. Someone sues over the accusation that they infringed copyright.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Well, the 4 letters show a history of alleged infringement, but I'd be surprised if they count as anything more than hearsay unless there's a reasonable process to go through to contest the letters.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    10. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      You can't use that defense anyway, ignorance is not an excuse legally speaking.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re: Warnings are discoverable ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mybmail gets stolen out of the box quite often. Who says I got the letter?

    12. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no _discovery_ in private law in England & Wales. There is a general and ongoing obligation of _disclosure_ per CPR Part 31, which requires all parties to disclose the existence documents they control (or have controlled) that may be prejudicial to their case. After disclosure lists are drawn up and exchanged, the parties may obtain copies (at their own cost) of the relevant documents. Failure to disclose may lead to sanctions including having one's case struck out by the court.

      Warning letters received in the mail are certainly something one might have to disclose.

      One could deny ever having received such a warning -- things do get lost in the mail with some regularity -- but the court is free to decide that you probably did get one of several, especially if they are luridly marked and correctly addressed.

  10. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The history of antipiracy lawsuits, especially in the US, would seem to suggest that they do bugger all to reduce piracy, at an enormous cost to the IP owner and the taxpayer. When the patient's dying on the table and your best witchdoctor isn't helping, maybe it's time to switch to a better kind of medicine.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  11. Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Baki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope and think that the brainwashing of the younger "freeloading" generation will fail.
    It is truely disgusting to see the attempts to brainwash the people to protect vested economic interests.
    The collateral damage to prevent sharing of bitstreams is just too high.
    We cannot prevent this, neither with laws nor with brainwashing. Sharing is just too easy and natural.

    We'll have to adapt our economic model to the new reality instead, the "new normal".

    1. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      File sharing is in fact so natural that my house cat just sent a copy of a Steven Demetre Georgiou album to the neighbour's cat.

    2. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by timrod · · Score: 3, Funny

      File sharing is so natural that I think my cat is trying to develop a new transfer protocol involving shed cat hair. At least, I assume that's why he rolls around on my pillow and covers it in cat hair.

    3. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless I'm mistaken, your cat was flea sharing.

    4. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of how an entire race became brainwashed that a diamond ring is a requirement to get married. Thanks, DeBeers.

    5. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Your cat is meowing in a way that is way too similar to my cat's meowing! Naturally my cat has a huge problem with this.

    6. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      Sharing is more than easy and natural, it's good. Sharing is so important to civilzations that early ones developed writing systems to facilitate it, and later ones have been improving it ever since. Reading and writing used to be only for the nobility, for the practical reason that educating everyone was more expense than was thought worthwhile, though this was also correctly seen as an excuse not to educate the masses. Words were terribly subversive, best if the people can't read them. The pen is not mightier than the sword if no one can read. Democracies changed that, deciding that 100% literacy was a desirable and nearly obtainable goal.

      Now here we are today, and what are our supposedly democratic governments doing? Siding with those who think they have a right to lock away knowledge, those who think the worthy desire to compensate artists justifies all kinds of monstrosities and public expense, and that fair compensation can only be done through Holy Copyright.

      Sharing should be encouraged. By everyone.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    7. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We teach our kids in preschool that they should share, and then we punish them for it.

      Talk 'bout mixed messages...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd consider a token ring much cooler.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of how an entire race became brainwashed that you must get married in order to have a meaningful relationship.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, and I think things like crowd funding are moving in to pick up the slack. I may be an unusual case, but I've been pirating virtually everything (books, music, tv, movies, games, apps, photos) for twenty years now. I pay money for things that I like, but actively avoid giving any money to the RIAA/MPAA or similar agencies. That generally means that people who are already huge and rich generally don't get anything (unless they offer something I want in non-traditional avenues) but the independent artists who do need the money get it. Going from there, the net result is that there is more art in the world.

      The only downside is that, like with nearly every system in life, the assholes win (ie, the people who pirate but don't put anything back into the system). However, even that is not totally bad, because any society that has ample free time and resources will create art. It just wouldn't be as much or as high quality as one that can support dedicated artists.

    11. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a netcat?

    12. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, That was probably caused be me requesting the entire Metallica collection from my cat.

    13. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... married in order to have a meaningful relationship.

      The bible has always been against pre-marital sex. In some books it was bad behaviour, in others, a crime equal to terrorism.

      In most societies, marriage is a way of holding men responsible: For the needs of the woman but mostly for her children.

      The 1700s, saw a push against pre-marital sex for 2 reasons: The number of men was small, so a public campaign was needed to prevent a large number of unwed mothers and widespread venereal disease . Then another reason took over: The supply of wealth moved from land and livestock, which was difficult to convert, to gold: Men wanted extra assurance they weren't giving their money to another man's children.

      The ban on prostitution was the height of political correctness of the day. I compare it to the 'think of the children' blurring of baby photos in the current day.

    14. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      In most societies, marriage is a way of holding men responsible

      In other words, sexist garbage. Marriage is nothing more than a title; it doesn't make a relationship inherently meaningful or good.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  12. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The correct answer is, both.

  13. Ahaaarghhhh Jim lad! The UK be the place of dreams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuff said.

  14. Hold on to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't ever relinquish control over ANYTHING. You need to keep control over everything including your Internet. Be inventive.

  15. As British as at it gets by sandbagger · · Score: 1

    How much did this cost?

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  16. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh dear. Who let The Register leak onto Slashdot?

    Someone get a mop, we need to clean this puddle of piss up.

  17. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    Oh, Stacey's GOING to be a whore.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  18. Kinda ok, kinda not by countach · · Score: 2

    On the one hand, its nice that this regime is measured and not over the top. On the other hand, if I hadn't pirated anything, because my flatmates/kids/friends/neighbours had done something I didn't know about, I'd still be pissed off receiving that letter. I don't think the good people of the UK should be completely satisfied with this situation. There should be a way to push back and say, no I didn't do it, take your stinking letter back.

    1. Re:Kinda ok, kinda not by magpie · · Score: 1

      They will be sending the letter to the person who's name appears on the bill. If your that person and didn't do it, the point is for you to have words with the person doing it or have the name changed on the bill to thiers. Basically it's saying "Hey your name is being associated with dodgy activity, you might want to stop this, but over to you about what you do."

    2. Re:Kinda ok, kinda not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty hard to have words with someone that uses your wifi without permission.

    3. Re:Kinda ok, kinda not by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If I were in the UK, and received such a letter, it would be interesting information for me, because I like to know how my connection is being used. It's only an informational letter, after all.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Kinda ok, kinda not by countach · · Score: 1

      Most people in this situation have no hope of knowing who did it. For example, I have 4 flatmates. If one of them does something like this, I would have no way of finding out which one it was. So its an utter waste of time. If I had kids at home, I'm sure they would all deny it too, like kids always do. If I had friends over, what am I going to ring my friends and accuse them? Ha!

  19. Look at *why* people are pirating by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's because there's no convenient way (other than pirating) to get the media you want to watch/listen to, when you want to watch/listen to it. If the media companies would make *everything* available under a subscription model (like Netflix), there would be no need to go to Pirate Bay to get it. I suspect much of what is pirated is watched once. Figure $60/yr for a VPN, or $20/mo for Netflix (which, sadly, doesn't have a tenth what's available by torrent), and the media companies could do pretty well...if they would only do it.

    1. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix drops shows all the time, and different regions are even worse. E.g. The UK has no anime shows, just a whopping 7 TV movies. I was watching Trailer Park Boys, came back the next day, gone. My kids complain whatever they're getting the same problem. Get into a show, start watching, lose it at some point. So what's the alternative?

    2. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2

      Exactly. I offer Netflix only as a legitimate source of "all you can watch for $20/mo". The fact that they carry only a very limited selection of movies (not even the old B&W ones from the 40s) leads me to consider using other, less legitimate means, to obtain the films I want to watch. I'd be happy to watch them on Netflix (considering that I'm paying for it), but, for whatever reason, they choose not to offer them. And we're not talking about current films, either. There's really only one alternative: $60/yr for a Hide-My-Ass VPN and torrents.

    3. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by ruir · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. I am buying Apple apps because they are convenient, far more apps then I have bought all my life. If Apple/the film industry wanted to put music and films at reasonable prices, with the infra-structure they have already in place, they would take the market by storm. There is a lost opportunity here.

    4. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's just the tip of the ice cube.

      Imagine you're living in a country where movies are dubbed. Dubbed BADLY, I should probably add. I would PAY to get movies that run on public TV if I could only watch them without the atrocious dubbing!

      And don't think that buying the DVD would solve that problem. Because of course you can ONLY get the dubbed version, while importing any media is of course outlawed. I tried to ask some politicians around here why it's ok for companies to manufacture abroad and import them for zilch while it's not ok for me to buy DVDs abroad. So far no sensible answer...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will NEVER EVER happen, at least unless there's some sort of government copyright bureau that holds power over the rights to all media. There are just too many thorny issues that humans cannot resolve amongst themselves.

    6. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      I already pay $10 a month for Spotify and $8 a month for Netflix. I am uncomfortable with the DRM and try to download full albums when I like them rather than just a song from them, but for most of my listening Spotify is great. I would happily pay four times what I pay Netflix if there was an equivalent selection of movies and TV, and equivalent good performance. Right now Netflix's selection is really limited, and there are occasional streaming problems (Amazon's streaming service is complete garbage compared to it though), though it's still worth the $8 a month. But I'd pay much more for a good selection and good streaming performance, even with the delay of waiting until the theater run ends. But nothing comes close to the performance of the torrents, so even though I'd gladly pay a few bucks per movie, there's nobody to pay to.

    7. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      Not to mention there are things available by torrent I could not buy if I wanted to. For examples: 1) Linux-native Half-Life 2 that doesn't require Steam. 2) Windows 7 that can be installed to, from, or run from a USB flash drive. If these corps would stop slinging artificially crippled tech I'd pay for it.

    8. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If the media companies would make *everything* available under a subscription model (like Netflix), there would be no need to go to Pirate Bay to get it.

      Nope, I just plain don't want to pay for stuff.

  20. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, this thread is off to a great start. I expect great things here, dont disappoint me.

  21. The US started this 2 years ago by rjejr · · Score: 1

    This sounds a lot like the "copyright alert system" that ISPs and the MPAA and RIA started 2 years ago. You get an email form your ISP when you illegally download copies of Game of Thrones on bittorrent. Or so I've been told.

    1. Re:The US started this 2 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't even mention that BS..

      Somebody in our Network decided to download GoT, and we got the letter.

      Our lawyer came directly to me (the IT manager of a small company).

      Called the ISP (name withheld on purpose), and they couldn't give me anymore details for me to hunt down what was going on, my logs firewall logs had already rolled over, so the ISP was useless to my investigation, and all I got was: reset the wifi password from them.

      My response to the laywer, ISP told us to reset wifi password, done, and there is no evidence that it actually happened other than some A-hole that works for a media company claiming it happened.

      Great waste of time.......

    2. Re:The US started this 2 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be broken, since they implemented that, I've been torrenting terabytes of content, and nary a letter.

      P.S. Fuck you, Comcast.

  22. The right choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice."

    I'm so glad they are trying to help pirates make the right choices.
    BTW, which right choices are we talking about here?

    Oh ya, you want those pirates to pay you more money!
    Virgin needs more money right? OK, got it.

  23. WIPO by Demena · · Score: 1

    Do not treaties require the UK to be active in this?

  24. Except... by Demena · · Score: 2

    When you use a torrent you are also sending data blocks. So even if you leach you are still "supplying" while you are downloading. This make the situation civilly more precarious and becomes criminal too.

    1. Re:Except... by Xest · · Score: 1

      No, only when there is a profit motive in supplying does it become a criminal case. If you're supplying without charging it's still very much a civil case.

    2. Re:Except... by Demena · · Score: 1

      But there is a benefit gained (profit is the wrong word). The benefit gained from the supply of the blocks you have already received is getting g the remaining blocks.

    3. Re:Except... by Xest · · Score: 1

      However you may and wish to try and twist the argument to cover up your misunderstanding that's still not what is deemed in law to be criminal infringement because it's still not commercial activity.

      You may dislike the word profit but that's generally the key factor, the only exceptions are if you're say doing it to encourage your business to grow in other areas - i.e. you can have this "free" illegal copy if you buy something else from us.

      Using BitTorrent in a personal capacity is by definition not a commercial activity.

    4. Re:Except... by Demena · · Score: 1

      Commercial or not it is a legally proscribed act from which you obtain a benefit, I also point out that the UK law is based on common law not constitutional law. If you disagree with me then ask another lawyer. Relying on that reasoning when caught will not work.

    5. Re:Except... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Don't say "ask another lawyer" when you're clearly not a lawyer. I don't know what you're on about mentioning the UK is based on common law not constitutional law, yes, well done, so what, what was the insertion of that random factoid about exactly? Do you feel that if you add in random quotations about different law in different jurisdictions that that somehow adds weight to your argument on this particular case? It really doesn't, it looks like a really really poor attempt at misdirection.

      Criminal copyright infringement isn't about receiving a benefit, it's about seeking to profit, directly or indirectly. You keep trying to avoid the word profit and switch to things like "benefit" but like it or not, UK copyright law revolves around profiting, which is subtly different to benefiting.

      But enough of your nonsense, enough of your "go ask another lawyer", he's what the IPO, the UK's intellectual property office, the organisation that oversees IP has to say about it:

      "Deliberate infringement of copyright on a commercial scale may be a criminal offence. Please see further information on What is IP crime? and the additional remedies which may be available."

      http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-o...

      Personal sharing no matter to how many people isn't by definition commercial in nature and so cannot be of commercial scale, and that's before you even question how you might prove someone using BitTorrent is deliberately distributing something, most users don't even know it uploads too, they think they're just downloading anyway so proving deliberate infringement in itself would make it an impossible criminal prosecution.

      If you want to continue to argue otherwise rather than pretending to be a lawyer, which you're clearly not, please provide me one single case where someone has been hit with a successful criminal prosecution for personal sharing.

      No? couldn't find one? gee, I wonder why that might be? I'll give you a hint: it's because you're still completely wrong, as much as you refuse to admit it. The police do not even pursue personal file sharing precisely because it is not criminal.

      Of course if you're still adamant that you want to keep digging I guess I could do as you say and ask a lawyer too (but again, not "another" lawyer, because again, you're clearly not one despite your implication), and they might say something like:

      "It is also possible for a person to face criminal prosecution for copyright infringement, but the copyright statutes in the UK in effect limit the offence to the large-scale distribution of pirated material for financial gain."

      http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/c...

      So are you going to stop digging now or is this enough information for you to now be able to accept that you had no idea what you were on about?

    6. Re:Except... by Demena · · Score: 1
      Stop digging? You are digging fast enough for both of us. I am not and never claimed to be a lawyer. Nor do I need to be. I have access to a sufficiency. Not that I have consulted them over this as I would not trust them as most of them since they have other specialities.

      My sentence was meant to be read as your current one does not seem to be that good. Yet you fastened on a less likely alternative and latched on to it with certainty as if it were an absolute truth.

      And there is the issue, 'certainty'. The reason I mentioned common law is that common law is flexible and evolves. There seem to be a number of people saying that this all means that the government has given up. Do not be certain about that. I am suspicious, paranoid if you would and consider it sensible to be so. Time will show the truth or falsity of this. Nothing else.

      You are quite welcome to the last word.

  25. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't slow or stop Piracy, period, fact.

    1. Re:By Neruos by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Of course you can! It's even easy.

      For-sale content of course cannot compete on price with free stuff. That's a given. But there are two areas where you can very easily compete with it: Convenience and quality.

      Of course, if you're like the content industry and artificially lower both for the sake of "fighting piracy", you only shoot your own foot.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad analogy, since a lot of people have to resort to witchdoctors(differs from country to country, some call them shamans, witches, holistic healers, new ageism, etc) after their insurance no longer covers their treatments. And you know what? Sometimes they work.

    Also, the ones advising for lawsuit are the lawyers, the only ones to profit.
    I think that anyone who takes a lawyers advice for business and management instead of only legal issues is an idiot. But that's just me.

  27. "Will this result in more private lawsuits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >"Will this result in more private lawsuits against file sharers by the companies involved?"

    Good luck proving that an IP address == a person.

    1. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dear Sir/Madam,

      We found out that from your IP address someone downloaded our stuff. You may now either admit guilt and pay $inconvenient_sum or spend the next 10ish years in court in a legal battle against a company with more funds than dear God himself over $ridiculous_sum. You'll probably win the suit, but for sure it will cost you more than $inconvenient_sum, and you can bet your ass that if you dared to try getting it back from us, we'll drag it out 'til the red guy from the basement complains about heating problems or you're finally totally broke.

      It is of course entirely your choice.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Huh? We're not talking about artists suing studios.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I tell her to carry condoms. At least there's a chance she'll heed that one.

    Hormones are more powerful than anything you can do as a parent. Deal with it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. File sharing is active anti-semitism, no less! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to reverse the tide of torrent and P2P, we have to educate people that movie and music piracy is an active form of anti-semitism. Only the most brazen few would continue, if they knew!

    Hollywood movie studios are all owned by jewish investors and the overwhelming majority of directors and even the actors are ethnic jewish people. Music labels are owned by jewish investors (even though jewish people do not participate much in performing popular music, preferring classical music instead). Jewish people put their money on the line, seeking commerical success in the entertainment media market, but the goyim are stealing their produce without compensation and are damn proud about that. (Not to mention online bookscan-sharing sites, as most of the world's literature, be it scientific or romantic, is also authored by jewish people.)

    Thus, torrenting is essentially an online form of Crystal Nacht where the goyim are smashing in the jewish shop's glass and take whatever they want, without compensation and the authorities will turn a blind eye. This "success" only encourages even more of the already rampant online anti-semitism. Soon there will be pogroms and endlo:sung again.

    If you are not happy about being part of this disaster in progress, investigate your conscience and cease torrenting! Force your governments to respect and uphold the jewish people's right. It is not about the validity of US laws worldwide, but about respecting the rights of jewish people worldwide. Many jewish people choose to live in the USA, because the land of free enterprise allows them to fullfill inspirations. Yet, the world laughs in the face of USA and the jewish people, while enjoying the uncountable many fruits of jewish creativity, from science to tech, from art to entertainment, without ever contributing a dime. Now we have a full generation of online young people growing up, who think this situation is the norm.

  31. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. The people who think it's just that they get government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures that infringe upon private property and free speech rights are quite the entitled bunch. Why, they even think the enforcement should all be handled by the government, and that everyone should listen to their accusations even when they don't have a shred of real evidence!

  32. same with dubious porno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same techniques are being applied to prevent dubious pornography, that is honey pots! followed by .... one can only imagine!

  33. So... by Agares · · Score: 2

    What happens if I share completely legal software? How are they supposed to tell if what I am sharing is in fact legal to share freely? I am constantly playing around with VMs and what not and love playing with various systems. So what happens to nerds like me who just happen to use a lot of bandwidth just tinkering? I think this is ridiculous on so many levels. Besides just because torrents are being used doesn't mean you are doing something illegal. A lot of free software is shared via torrents. Well I am just preaching to the choir here you all know what I am getting at. Either way what you do with your connection to the internet is no one else's business.

  34. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1
  35. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Larryish · · Score: 1

    Time to get that UK seedbox I been eyeing. w00t!

  36. Tried to do the right thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice."
     
    I've been trying to "do the right thing" for years. But they keep making it harder to. I have been buying DVDs and ripping them to my hard drive to take to work (remote location, on an oil rig). But they say I am a criminal for ripping them. It's not convenient to bring a pile of DVDs to the rig (weight restrictions, risk of damage, maybe didn't bring the right one). Now the disclaimer says I can't watch them in a hotel (on my way to the rig) or on the oil rig. So now I am a criminal for doing that. Some DVDs I have bought I have not been able to rip.
     
    The message from the industry is "go pirate stuff, you're a criminal anyway".
     
    Disney puts stuff "back in the vault" (artificial scarcity). If it is not available any other way, what do they expect?
     
    Want to watch it on a different device? Either too bad, or pay us again.
     
    Want to watch that? You have to be online. (Internet is slow here on the oil rig, and a lot of stuff (like Steam, Netflix, etc) are blocked.). Hell, even at home, our internet/phone/TV provider went offline during hurricane Arthur, and it would not let us play back stuff on the PVR. It's recorded locally on the hard drive, but required service provider authorization to play.
     
    The lesson is, pay and lose and get treated like dirt. Download without paying, and watch any time/any where/on whatever device you want.

  37. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tell her to carry condoms. At least there's a chance she'll heed that one.

    I don't just tell my daughter, I buy them for her.

    Only size Small though

  38. Re: by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Aside of a rather tasteless joke that comes to my mind...

    Do you really want them to rip?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

    When the corporations can provide me with a superior product I might decide to pay them. But right now, I have a native copy of HL2 for Linux that doesn't require Steam. I have copies of just about every version of Windows which can be installed to and run from flash drives. Neither of these things can be legally purchased. When "they" stop artificially crippling technology I might pay them for it. Of course, I'll probably have my own army of open source killbots by then.

  40. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

    Nah, you just need another voodoo chicken! Damn kids...

  41. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the patient isn't even dying, but is in rude health, you have to consider if the doctor's maybe a quack.

  42. Look at *why* people are pirating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, some don't have the money to buy stuff, or they just don't want to pay (for whatever reasons).

  43. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or just accept the fact that it's dying, and move on.

  44. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Samizdata · · Score: 1

    You have no idea how hard it is to find a virgin chicken in my town, much less one for sacrifice....

    --
    It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
  45. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Either way what you do with your connection to the internet is no one else's business.

    Thanks man, I needed that chuckle.