Parents whose children download music and films illegally will be blacklisted and have their internet access curbed under government reforms to fight online piracy. Households that ignore warnings will be subjected to online surveillance and their internet speeds will be reduced, making it very difficult for them to download large files.
Britain’s six biggest service providers - BT, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse - have signed up to the scheme. In return, the Government has abandoned a controversial proposal to disconnect broadband services for users who had been caught out three times.
Households that ignore warnings will be subjected to online surveillance and their internet speeds will be reduced, making it very difficult for them to download large files.
How will they know if someone is downloading music unless they already have that person under surveillance? Also how will they be able to tell whether an mp3 is copyrighted or open source or when the files are contained within a compressed file unless they monitor every file that everyone downloads?
Another thing, what happens if someone connects to your wireless network and downloads illegal files? It will be a case of guilty until proven innocent.
Seems, Fergal Sharkey former undertones singer, now CEO of British Music Rights reckons this cannot go on any longer, the music business won't surive it is losing so much revenue. What a strange thing when artists like Prince, Simply Red and many others give their music away free when you buy a newspaper. Apparently in France, within the year, it will be 3 strikes and your out, surfers are disconnected in third infringement.
quote:
Service providers will send warning letters to thousands of homes across the UK where illegal downloading has been detected, telling them that they are being monitored. It is hoped that this will discourage casual copying. It may be the first parents know that their children are breaking the law.
The second stage focuses on sanctions. Ministers have asked Ofcom to lead negotiations between service providers and the film and music industries on how to deal with persistent and blatant offenders, some of whom make thousands of songs from their collections available to copy online. If there is no agreement, legislation will be introduced.
Households that ignore warnings will be subjected to online surveillance and their internet speeds will be reduced, making it very difficult for them to download large files.
How will they know if someone is downloading music unless they already have that person under surveillance? Also how will they be able to tell whether an mp3 is copyrighted or open source or when the files are contained within a compressed file unless they monitor every file that everyone downloads?
This is how not sure whether they will let this post go through this time now I have taken the names off certain download sites
quote:
Internet users could find themselves the subject of “traffic management”, meaning a sudden curtailment of their internet speeds, and “traffic filtering”, a careful monitoring of the media files downloaded to an account to check whether they have paid for them. Illegal downloaders can be detected easily by an enforcement team set up by the BPI, the music trade body. Its monitors log on to websites where music is available to copy, such as ****** &******and note the IP addresses of those who use these sites. These identify a unique internet connection, but not the subscriber’s name and address.
As he states "a threatening letter will doubtless deter some people, but I'll bet that 6.4 million of the 6.5 million Britons who downloaded illegally last year are under 25" he reckons it is desparation and Charles Dunstone of Carphone Warehouse, he could not imagine them voluntarily disconnecting a customer's account.
quote:
The long-term prospects are bleaker still - new technology has made music a cottage industry. It is so cheap to get recorded music to the audience that artists no longer need a major label. The industry has been in a similar quandary before; rock'n'roll and, later, punk created an opportunity for DIY labels, run out of bedrooms and shacks, to tear huge chunks out of the lethargic, lumbering majors. The present problem, however, is more long-term.MySpace is the cleanest form of musical distribution - anyone with talent, which has always been roughly 1 per cent of the pop world, will get noticed there and build up a fanbase. The next step for an aspiring act is to sell their music at gigs, on CD (very cheap) or vinyl, which has the air of exclusivity. Live music, if the act takes off, is now where most of the money is.
No sooner had Britain’s six biggest internet service providers (ISPs) agreed to monitor illegal file sharing than the web was abuzz with suggestions to get around the scheme. The BPI, representing Britain’s music companies, announced a “three-step” sanction procedure, in which internet connections would be suspended on the second copyright infringement and cancelled at the third.
If you read the above link fully it tells you how to get round it, The Times downloaded, many other suggestions by geeks and hackers, so the Fergal Shark ey will have to come up with something better in while he is simming around murky coloured water with the record labels execs, perhpas he should focus on how record labels are ripping off their artists why does'nt he swim round that.
Originally posted by Louboutin: This is how not sure whether they will let this post go through this time now I have taken the names off certain download sites
quote:
Internet users could find themselves the subject of “traffic management”, meaning a sudden curtailment of their internet speeds, and “traffic filtering”, a careful monitoring of the media files downloaded to an account to check whether they have paid for them. Illegal downloaders can be detected easily by an enforcement team set up by the BPI, the music trade body. Its monitors log on to websites where music is available to copy, such as ****** &******and note the IP addresses of those who use these sites. These identify a unique internet connection, but not the subscriber’s name and address.
So they won't be able to tell if it is you downloading the music or some kid sat half a mile away with a pringles can and a copy of backtrack. You will just get your internet connection cut to dial up speeds while the kid simply moves on to someone elses connection.
Originally posted by Anonimouse: A wonderful indication of how the world spins!
I'll lay a little bet that parents of a child who commits an assault or burglary can rest easy they won't be troubled by the law.
All agreed but just how ridiculous the internet laws are turning out to be are exhibited by this Edinburgh family's brush with Intellectual property of C S Lewis who died a long time before email addresses were needed! Caveat emptor as they say.
Originally posted by Louboutin: If you read the above link fully it tells you how to get round it, The Times downloaded, many other suggestions by geeks and hackers, so the Fergal Shark ey will have to come up with something better, while he is swimming around the murky coloured water with the record labels execs, perhaps he should focus on how record labels are ripping off their artists why does'nt he swim round that sewer.
Originally posted by Louboutin: This is how not sure whether they will let this post go through this time now I have taken the names off certain download sites
quote:
Internet users could find themselves the subject of “traffic management”, meaning a sudden curtailment of their internet speeds, and “traffic filtering”, a careful monitoring of the media files downloaded to an account to check whether they have paid for them. Illegal downloaders can be detected easily by an enforcement team set up by the BPI, the music trade body. Its monitors log on to websites where music is available to copy, such as ****** &******and note the IP addresses of those who use these sites. These identify a unique internet connection, but not the subscriber’s name and address.
So they won't be able to tell if it is you downloading the music or some kid sat half a mile away with a pringles can and a copy of backtrack. You will just get your internet connection cut to dial up speeds while the kid simply moves on to someone elses connection.
you mean when someone sits on your wall, accessing your access to wireless connection? how will they get round that?
Originally posted by Anonimouse: A wonderful indication of how the world spins!
I'll lay a little bet that parents of a child who commits an assault or burglary can rest easy they won't be troubled by the law.
Beat me to it-underage drinking, violence and so on are considered less important than downloading a song you've already purchased on a number of different formats before.
And Fergal Sharkey has no profile from the side so I can't take him seriously.
My understanding, while a person that stole the goods can't be traced it is a crime to receive stolen property, you can be charged for this. In the cases of what they define as net piracy they can trace how you gained access to stolen goods your Internet Service Provider? your ISP is complicit in the crime? they are the stolen goods dealer?
Originally posted by Louboutin: you mean when someone sits on your wall, accessing your access to wireless connection? how will they get round that?
Yep, apart from they don't have to be sat on your wall. From my loft window I can connect to wireless networks over a mile away with a suitable antenna. Last time I did a scan round with netstumbler I found over 100 networks that were within range. About 15 of those didn't have any encryption and over three quarters were using WEP encryption which can be cracked within an hour. Even with WPA encryption you are still vulnerable to brute force attacks.
While there is so much influence bending the ears of the government and providers for downloading music that frankly I wouldn't be paid to listen to, why don't they try the same thing with people who download child porn? If they can identify people who download and upload music then the same should go for those who do the same with images of serious criminal acts. Maybe the thought of someone getting free music is seen as more important. What a funny old world eh.
