Slashdot Mirror
BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates
An anonymous reader sends this news from TorrentFreak:
After cutting its teeth as a domestic broadcaster, the BBC is spreading its products all around the globe. Shows like Top Gear have done extremely well overseas and the trend of exploiting other shows in multiple territories is set to continue. As a result, the BBC is now getting involved in the copyright debates of other countries, notably Australia, where it operates four subscription channels. Following submissions from Hollywood interests and local ISPs, BBC Worldwide has now presented its own to the Federal Government. Its text shows that the corporation wants new anti-piracy measures to go further than ever before.
The BBC begins by indicating a preference for a co-operative scheme, one in which content owners and ISPs share responsibility to "reduce and eliminate" online copyright infringement. ... "Since the evolution of peer-to-peer software protocols to incorporate decentralized architectures, which has allowed users to download content from numerous host computers, the detection and prosecution of copyright violations has become a complex task. This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains.
The BBC begins by indicating a preference for a co-operative scheme, one in which content owners and ISPs share responsibility to "reduce and eliminate" online copyright infringement. ... "Since the evolution of peer-to-peer software protocols to incorporate decentralized architectures, which has allowed users to download content from numerous host computers, the detection and prosecution of copyright violations has become a complex task. This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains.
Think I'll be downloading my Doctor Who fix from now on.
What say the managers and officers running the BBC open up all their finances for the public to see. What? You don't want to? Well then you must be embezzling.
Presumably this is to stop non license payers watching BBC iPlayer (it's catch-up TV and streaming service) from abroad. As a British ex-pat in South Africa (where the local TV is dire), I would happily pay a subscription to access iPlayer, but I can't. This can't be a difficult thing for them to do, but instead they want to enforce geo-blocking. Since they won't take my money, why bother enforcing the geo-blocking? This is just stupid.
What's surprising, based on this article, is the minimal checks that the BBC's geolocation blocking uses. It's purely DNS based. Just set your nameserver to a UK-based DNS nameserver and you can fire up and watch programs using the BBC iPlayer.
The ITVPlayer, in the other hand requires the actual program streams to be pulled using a UK-based IP address.
For people with the technical skills, a London, UK based virtual private server can be rented for about $10/month and perhaps less.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Indeed. Looks like the BBC has derped a little too hard recently.
But let's be honest, the endless assault on IT has been ongoing for some time. 'Cloud services,' 'NSA firmware,' 'H1B personnel,' etc., etc. Government / business isn't done until the internet won't run.
Here's to hoping that there's a planet out there that doesn't suffer from this insanity.
Even in China where the vast majority of VPN use actually is solely to bypass legal restrictions on various websites, VPN is not considered by the authorities to be an inherently malevolent technology. I'd hate to see the "Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free" take the first initiative here.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
The old saying "The Emperor has no clothes" applies here. Copyright law is a distorted abomination. The terms of copyright are outrageous, a work created today will not enter the public domain in my lifetime because the length of protection is so corrupted. Since I will die before Alien (1979) enters the public domain then that means copyright is effectively unlimited. "Expiry" is a lie. Sane copyright law would see works enter the public domain after a reasonable amount of time such as 14 (original term) to 20 years (what would be acceptable). Not only would those works then be able to be freely shared but also new works, with new sane protection terms, would be able to be created in those universes. A new Alien movie which does not need the blessing of the old creators. 20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct. When it comes to copyright laws another saying applies "unjust laws serve to bring all laws into contempt." A primer on the subject can be found here as a freely downloadable PDF: The Public Domain.
Yes and no. A starving artist who makes nothing from his work should continue to receive his small royalty, if he gets any; a project that hasn't earned back its costs should have copyright extended for a *long* time--maybe 40 years or the lifetime of the artist, whichever is longer. But a project that has made its producers hundreds of millions should enter the public domain within five to ten years. There is no justification for copyright beyond that term when a project has been enormously successful.
So the BBC is calling itself a pirate! Does it not use VPNs to distribute broadcast material between the studios, playout centres and transmitters? If so then, by its own definition, it itself is a pirate organisation.
A few years ago when BitTorrent first introduced encryption the UK security services complained that they were having a hard time separating it from other encrypted traffic. This tells us two things.
1. They think BitTorrent users aid terrorism.
2. Using encryption, e.g. a VPN, makes you a potential terrorist and of interest to them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The BBC is essentially a well-funded mouthpiece of the British Government.
I find it best to ignore them and look for less-biased news sources.
(Or at least to counter-balance the news with sources that don't have British affiliations.)
As someone who lives and works in the U.S., I love BBC. Listen to BBC news radio on the way to work every day (free streaming on TuneIn Radio) and watch several BBC shows on cable.
In fact, BBC is something I wouldn't mind spending extra money to get a 'TV license' for, just like they force people in the UK to pay.
So offer me one. Give me a internet license for BBC online and let me stream it from whereever I am on the planet. If you want you can do it by creating your own VPN and renting that to me.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
The irony of this discussion is that as someone who lives in the UK and pays his licence fee, I still sometimes run into content on the BBC that I'm told I'm not allowed to see because I live in the wrong place.
This is why I lack much sympathy for the Beeb when people use VPNs and the like to circumvent geographical restrictions. I do understand that there are commercial agreements and licensing conditions at work here, and I do understand that the BBC Worldwide commercial arm is not the same as the BBC itself (though it is a wholly owned subsidiary).
Just to be clear, I think the BBC is a borderline national treasure. It is certainly not perfect, but the range and quality of programming it has produced over the years is so much better than the apparent norm on commercial television channels that I pay my licence fee gladly, even if it is a bizarre pseudo-tax based on archaic rules about who has to contribute.
However, if you're going to take primarily public funding, with only a relatively small amount coming from BBC Worldwide's commercial activities, then not sharing the results with those members of the public who are paying your bills is not on, IMHO.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.