Uk To Implement Three-strike System For Pirates

[The Simpleton 2]

I read this in a newspaper and was really amused. The UK government is planning to implement a three-strike system for people who download illegal material off the internet. They will be given two warnings and if they continue their offenses then their internet connection will be terminated! The first reaction I got after reading this was "Is this possible?!". Ok even if ISPs can track their customers, would they really want to lose them? If I'm not wrong, every 4-5 people out of 10 download something illegally from the internet regularly. If all these people lose their connections, the biggest losers are the ISPs, who stand to lose millions! The people who lose their connections will no doubt find some other way to get back online but the losses for the ISPs still remain. Also, I'm sure many people will try to get around this system, by changing their IP address or some trick like that. So no matter how smart the tracking systems are, there will always be a smarter trick to fool it! Anyway, what is your opinion on all of this? Do you think it's sensible? Do you think it will actually stop people from getting their precious pirated stuff?!

[freshpub 0]

The government can try to cut off people from the Internet, but nearly every town has a library with computers to access the net. And usually it's free to sign up! The threat might stop some people, like those who prefer to stay on the right side of the law or who might not even realise they're doing wrong. But like you pointed out, those who really want their videos, music tracks or ebooks will find a way to get what they want. I think the ISP's may report the very worst offenders, but as you said, they stand to lose a lot.And if you're right with your statistics, the government can't really do anything anyway. I seems to recall the Prime Minister saying he wanted everyone in Britain to have access to the net by 2012. If have of us get banned, that target won't be met, will it?I think the government should stay out of it, really. It's a matter for the courts. I'm a publisher, and my industry has been working hard to put books online without risking the kind of piracy like the music industry has experienced with mp3. I think that this is really the way to go. The businesses offering stuff online must make sure themselves that their stuff doesn't get stolen. They have security systems for their offices and warehouses rights? They need the equivalent online!And then if someone steal, ban them from the store and sue them like you would do an offline thief. That's what the laws are for! Sure it might be more difficult, but the ISP's would definitely be more willing to help track down thieves rather than loose customers altogether.Just my point of view...

[Baniboy 3]

Actually, from what I've read, you don't stop paying for the connection after it's cut off. The ISPs do however, take a hit in this thing. People usually want a faster connection so they can download stuff faster. When downloading torrents might get your connection cut off, people will stay with their medium connection speed. ISPs will have less costumers buying the "megaspeed" connection.

 

It's kind of interesting. People that download stuff will encrypt their data, and the only ones left doing piracy will be just regular people.

So all this law is going to "strike" is just occasional pirates that don't cause too much harm. By the constitution of yours, nobody else can legally punish except the court. So by the lines of this law, if you're suspected for downloading, even if you don't, you're guilty unless proven otherwise. This is not a way for a legal system to work. Anyway, you can also be sued AFTER your internet is cut off because you had been been naughty. This is then issued by court. The court will then (usually) punish by jail time or ticket(s), plus you'd have to pay for the anti-piracy lawyer's fat pay bills.

Why this kind of law then is taking place? It is because the anti-piracy organizations don't have enough evidence that could cause pirate to lose the court case. So they're given the right to punish without a court case and without evidence. (Anyone here seen the movie "Judge Dred"? )

 

Another problem with this is that the European Union has decided that access to internet is a right, and you can't cut the internet off for a crime as punishment. MI5 and MI6 (UK's wannabe intelligence agencies FYI) have said that this law makes people encrypt their data. When everybody encrypts their data, real cyber criminals are harder to detect and trace down to a location.

 

If I made it sound like I'm on the wrong sideof the law, READ IT AGAIN, FROM NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW(and no, caps doesn't mean I'm shouting, I'm simply drawing your attention). Piracy is morally wrong, so you pirates out there, don't try to use these arguments to defend piracy. I'm not defending piracy, I'm simply telling you the problems that come with this law now being accepted.

[rvalkass 5]

Also, I'm sure many people will try to get around this system, by changing their IP address or some trick like that. So no matter how smart the tracking systems are, there will always be a smarter trick to fool it! Anyway, what is your opinion on all of this? Do you think it's sensible? Do you think it will actually stop people from getting their precious pirated stuff?!

People using TOR and proxies would probably actually be fairly effective at defeating the system. Encrypting the connection with SSL should also work - the content is not revealed on its travels across the web. The question that immediately leapt to my mind was how would they tell what you're downloading? Take standard HTTP downloads - they could just look at file types I guess, but there are way more legal audio and video files than illegal ones, so it would require manually inspecting every single downloaded file, in transit, to see if it was copyrighted material. That's just impractical. It also doesn't work for archived files, unless colossal amounts of processing power is used by ISPs to decompress all downloaded archives.

 

So, let's assume they focus their efforts on BitTorrent. They can't prosecute based on whether you use BitTorrent or not - again, there are plenty of legal files transferred via peer-to-peer, such as Linux distributions. Again, manual inspection of the contents of every torrent would be required to work out what files are in there, and whether those files are copyrighted or not. Again, incredibly impractical.

 

What worries me is the government's traditional feeble and flawed effort. They'll just go for anyone using file sharing, and I'll probably get my Internet disconnected for downloading the latest version of Kubuntu. To do it properly, to distinguish between legal and illegal activity, not just the presence of the activity, requires technology and resources that neither the government nor ISPs will invest in.

 

The government can try to cut off people from the Internet, but nearly every town has a library with computers to access the net. And usually it's free to sign up! The threat might stop some people, like those who prefer to stay on the right side of the law or who might not even realise they're doing wrong. But like you pointed out, those who really want their videos, music tracks or ebooks will find a way to get what they want. I think the ISP's may report the very worst offenders, but as you said, they stand to lose a lot.

Using libraries probably wouldn't work. Port blocking, strict Internet filters and the lack of peer-to-peer software pretty much puts a stop to it. However, with more libraries and public places offering free WiFi, it becomes easier to use your own software and harder to track exactly who is doing what.

 

And if you're right with your statistics, the government can't really do anything anyway. I seems to recall the Prime Minister saying he wanted everyone in Britain to have access to the net by 2012. If have of us get banned, that target won't be met, will it?

:D

 

I think the government should stay out of it, really. It's a matter for the courts. I'm a publisher, and my industry has been working hard to put books online without risking the kind of piracy like the music industry has experienced with mp3. I think that this is really the way to go. The businesses offering stuff online must make sure themselves that their stuff doesn't get stolen. They have security systems for their offices and warehouses rights? They need the equivalent online!

By comparing file sharers with thieves you fall into a common trap. With a theft there is physical loss of property or goods. Fair enough. With file sharing, there is no physical loss, only a copy of information or intelligence. As far as I know, that doesn't fall under the definition of theft.

 

On the subject of online distribution - appeal to people's trust rather than annoying them. Use a "pay what you think it's worth" system and you would be surprised at the success.

 

Actually, from what I've read, you don't stop paying for the connection after it's cut off.

If someone gets their connection cut off I think they'd just cancel their direct debit.

 

you're guilty unless proven otherwise.

Another problem. It looks like there is no system for appeals, and guilt is automatically assumed rather than innocence. Kinda flies in the face of the British justice system.

[Quatrux 4]

I agree, personally I think that this law is stupid, in my country it was discussed too, but I doubt anyone will want to loose customers and that ISPs will send someone something. I feel that my privacy will be violated if someone will be looking what I'm downloading, I really would not like that. It's enough to check companies if they're using legal software, home users should be left alone, unless they're doing a real crime, most of people who download illegal things like music doesn't make money out of it.People will just start encrypting as you said, maybe one or another guy will get disconnected and no results will be achieved, it's even better that people in Britain will start encrypting things and using false IP addresses for safety and privacy. Those billionaires won't get more money that people will download less music, cinemas won't get more viewers and I guess software developers won't too, as most people will just use free alternatives or still will find a way to do something illegal and won't get caught.

[inverse_bloom 0]

Bizarre law isn't it? The UK govenment seems to be becoming increasingly oppressive. I dont see how the UK government can implement this without significant resources, it seems to me they are using this to manipulate and discourage the public from engaging in such actions rather than do it large scale.They may get a few people, but i just can't see how they would examine a large percentage of public activities. As rvalkass mentioned they will probably target specific users such as those who use torrent apps, as the likely hood of catching people this way is higher. But for other users who just casually browse the net, surely it would be an incredible waste to monitor those poeple. I'd imagine they'd flag anyone as suspicous who enter a torrents site and monitor what they do from then on. It will be interesting how they try to implement this. I guess its very important for all in the UK to keep up to date with local news.

Edited November 3, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)

[aprensivo 0]

Hi all,As most of you probably know (or maybe not:), tomorrow a couple of countries meet up in South Korea to discuss, or should I say decide the way the ISPs in those countries. The official name for this treaty is AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement. Google for that if interested; for the need of disscussion, I'll keep it short - the draft of the treaty will FORCE the ISP to filter the packet going in and out from your PC. Obvoiusly, no one uses the word "force", but again I'll get to that below. And why go to such lenghts? To boost creativity! Well, at least that is what they say it is all about.As for now, no big Hollywod studio, musical industry giant and such can sue the ISP for their's subscribers activities. The ISP cannot be held financialy (and criminally!) responsible for a single user's actions, be it downloading latest Saw movie (is it part 8 or 9? I'm always a bit behind the rest ;-)) or the hottest Beyonce's song, sending the instructions of how to build a bomb or such. The new treaty will change that - the big boys will be able to sue the IPS. So, guess what a provider will do to prevent being sued for millions of dollars? You guessed it. It will be FORCED to filter snoop on the traffic your PC is taking part in.I don't know where most of you folks live, but I'm in the UK and the fact that the European Parliment agreed on a draft in it's today shape leaves a bitter aftertaste on my tounge when I think about it. And it's not because I am downloading terabytes of movies every week, share my "backed-up" music or such. I have my reasons for not doing so, but I don't want this topic to transform into a row between those who do and those who condemn it. What I really don't like is the fact the ISP will be allowed (or, as I staed before, forced) to cut off your Internet access if your activities are deemed illegal. France is on it's way to get it's HADOPI law (one of many aftereffects of the main international treaty), and the UK will be probably following shortly after. Oh, did I forget to mention it can be done just like that, without a court order or anything of the kind? Did I? Yep, if you're ACCUSED of violating the law, you'll get your connection cut off. Only then you can try and prove your case in court.Another thing - I don't want the ISP to filter my traffic. Filtering gives you means to reduce the bandwith for specific traffic, and - let's say - a provider that struggles with his banwith performance decides to cap Skype, which I happen to use quite a lot. Well, I definitely will notice the drop in quality of service, but I will have no means to prove the said ISP is doing that, right?On the other hand...If people are aware they will in all probability be caught downloading stuff from the net, they will not do that. So, the overall performance of the whole world network should improve... Although, as I said, I don't need massive bandwidth to get the newest Saw 12 :-) in under 10 minutes. I want freely and without anyone interfeering with it speak to my friends from all over the world. I want to upload a huge file I was working on to my company's server without any "this-guy-must-be-uploading-a-ripped-movie" alarms being triggered. I want my sister (she lives 10,000 miles away) to put on rapidshare a video of my little niece learning to walk so that I can see it almost straight away withoult being hassled by anyone to explain what this file contains. Simple needs, but I am a simple man.Hope the post is not THAT off-topic

Edited November 3, 2009 by aprensivo (see edit history)

[inverse_bloom 0]

Actually many modern developed countries appear to be planning to implement AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreements in some way or another, here is a link for more info -

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

I don't like the possibility of ISP's or whoever looking through my activities on the Internet. I don't like the fact that any personal information i send will be processed by another party, not just sent between myself and who I intended it for.

 

I'm probably over reacting, but this opens up a can of worms in my opinion. What if there are modifications made for governments to interfere further in future? Or will they stop at this? Could this eventually be abused to gain more power?

 

Personally i reckon I'm gonna begin researching how to keep myself private, just in case they try to block that information in future.

Edited November 4, 2009 by inverse_bloom (see edit history)

[The Simpleton 2]

All this makes me squirm a bit - everyone's personal info is in danger of being exposed if you think about this "ISP Co-operation" thingy. That's why I make sure my most important activities like banking, etc are done manually, even though it takes more time. I don't want to take unnecessary risks now and worry about it later!