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.
...have to VPN in to the work network to deal with switches or to check the status of an outage, I'm automatically assumed to be a pirate?
Seems like the BBC is looking to piss off every IT department in the UK.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Why not go all the way and say VPN users are terrorists? Just like all news media outlets are property of their respective government.
Think I'll be downloading my Doctor Who fix from now on.
Just like all news media outlets are property of their respective government.
It's the other way around. Government is property of the media, as the news media have power to make or break a candidate for public office. And with major movie studios owning most of the news media...
... is to avoid your ISP from injecting their own ads into web pages, like Comcast does. I would not be surprised if some ISPs tried to block VPN access just so they can mess with your traffic.
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.
The co-operative approach is obvious. I mean, if a Ford-brand car battery is used to electrocute a journalist's genitals in a spider-hole in Iraq, of course the journalist and his survivors can sue Ford. That's just obvious. And BBC is going to find that many businesses at home and abroad do not care to have their means of secure communication severed.
The BBC may want strong geo-blocking but it is completely against the interest of you and I. Geo-blocking is not a right given by law it is just a consequence of license agreements (an indirect consequence of copyright law).
Why should I as an internet user be compelled to give you accurate information about where I am located geographically?
"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,"
It also helps me circumvent geo-blocking technologies, ie. access GOOGLE, from China. Ooooohohhhhh....the evil!
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.
Shh.
Arrrgh, matey! Debit Left!!!, Credit Right!!!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The Slashdot summary essentially misses the point. It's not that VPN equals pirate, but that VPN use combined with heavy bandwidth should make them suspicious. Of course this means that the ISP should be monitoring the traffic in the first place. The whole thing is objectionable because it makes one private entity responsible for enforcing the legal/equitable rights of another, at their own cost.
.
To me, the BBC looks to be an organization that is completely anal with regard to who can view or who can access what on their website.
It looks to me as if the BBC would rather restrict than inform. But, hey, that is their choice.
If I were a news-oriented organization, I would probably take a different approach, but that's just me.
Methinks BBC did what they did on the advise of their lawyers, and I am sure that there are still plenty of good people within BBC who can discern good from bad, right from wrong
So ... why don't all of us contact BBC and tell them what we think ?
Their website is at http://bbc.com/
You can contact them via http://www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/cont...
Or file a complaint at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaint...
Their worldservice email address is at worldservice.letters@bbc.co.uk
Their FB page is at https://www.facebook.com/bbcwo...
Let them know, let BBC know how wrong they are about VPN
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Everyone who wears pants is hiding something!!!! or they are modest, or cold or something... But they are for damn sure guilty of wearing pants!!!!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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.
Aye, matey. You don't know it yet, but everytime you log into your corporate VPN, you trigger an illegal download. That's part of Ciscos evil masterplan to get rid of odd soap operas like Downtown Abbey
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!
Not only that, but actually you're one of the worst. You're even doing it FOR PROFIT!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Easily abused. No hollywood movie ever turns a profit on paper.
A direct effect if copyright was reformed to reasonable terms would very likely be a golden age for our culture. All of a sudden those pent up reserves of story craft would be unleashed in a myriad of creative expression and experience. Movies, Music, Books, Interactive Entertainment, everything that copyright currently hoards. New ventures into existing universes is one thing but the ad-hoc communities that would form around the freed works would also spur a renaissance in our culture. Old computer games could be packaged up in whatever emulation needed to make them operate on modern machines, freely distributed. Legitimate torrent sites could specialize in genres and not only host the information but also a chorus of discussion that would not have existed when the works were locked away. If our culture was a tapestry then releasing the flood would weave into it vibrant colour and pattern that is currently dulled and frayed. The only reason this is all prevented right now is regulatory capture by vested interests who choose to keep their penny rather than let a dollar fall into a collective grasp.
Shh.
I take it you never have heard of Hollywood accounting? https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
I think that if you want to publicly publish a work and want copyright protection of that work, then you pay a copyright fee. The first year, the fee would be one dollar. Each subsequent year, the cost of copyright protection doubles.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Lolwut? So when I connect to my corporate network to do legal stuff I get a paycheck for, I am a pirate?
If you are using VPN for the purpose, then yes, you can be suspected to be a pirate. Not proven though.
Same deal with BitTorrent: if you are found transmitting BitTorrent traffic, there's a very high chance that you are a pirate. This despite the fact that BitTorrent is used for various legitimate purposes too.
The mere thought that a content provider wants to ban and restrict consumers is absurd to me. They should provide content that's equally accessible by everyone, no exceptions, and no bans based on your location in the world. For example I was abroad during the world cup, and I wanted to watch it, but I couldn't because my very own country's provider didn't let me because I connected using a foreign IP. But this is exactly the time I'd use a streaming service, when I can't access to my regular cable subscription. It feels to me that they're trying to hold on to values and methods that worked 20 years ago. They could get away with separating continents then (barely). But the internet is global, the world is global, you cannot restrict me from accessing the content I want to. Or you can, but it will force me to look for other sources. (torrent, circumventing geoban, etc). The answer is so obvious, why not let everyone have easy access to the content for a modest fee? I'd gladly pay, but don't please don't think a restrictive poor quality ad riddled online player will do.
This statement:
"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."
Doesn't appear to be remotely close to what the topic claims:
"BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates"
Quite the opposite, it very clearly that "some users" use it for multiple purposes.
Yet that hasn't stopped anyone here from simply assuming the article header is correct and complaining. Which is precisely why everyone ignores nerds.
Although its not the primary reason I use VPN, I'll admit it...yeah, BBC, I live in the US and I use it to watch your programming. Because US factual and documentary programming sucks. And BBC America is a fucking joke. Just to name a few off the top of my head, if a BBC program has David Attenborough, Monty Don, or Fred Dibnah in it, I'll watch it. Even if its a show about watching paint dry. So instead of trying to find ways to lock out people like me, why don't you turn it in to a money making opportunity...shut up, take my money, and sell me a TV license.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
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.
Hey, Beeb. If you don't like people pirating your content (I don't, other than watching YouTube), them let them buy access, FFS. I'd be willing to pay a modest fee to watch domestic BBC programs for the convenience of not having to wait months / years / never (Porridge) for the content to show up in alternative media.
But what exactly are you going to say? Despite the inflammatory slashdot summary the quoted text from the BBC submission only says that pirates use VPNs. This is not at all the same as saying that all VPN users are pirates. The troubling part is that they are advocating that ISPs should throttle and disconnect users based on accusations from other companies which, as we have seen time and time again are often inaccurate.
So lets go after the real issues and not invent new ones based on deliberate misinterpretation since the latter will result in loss of all credibility and leave the field wild open for really draconian suggestions.
Downtown Abbey
Downton. I don't know why there's no second 'w' in there, but it is Downton.
Disclaimer: Never seen the show but am persistently irked by the missing second 'w'.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.