UK Webwar: 'Illegal Filesharers' To Be Disconnected Without Trial

[Revolverman]

Don't know if this is true, but isn't even remembering a song in your head, technically a violation of copyright?

Also, Song sales rarely benefit the bands that make the songs. If you want to support a band, go to their concert.

[MercyfulFate]

Don't know if this is true, but isn't even remembering a song in your head, technically a violation of copyright?

Also, Song sales rarely benefit the bands that make the songs. If you want to support a band, go to their concert.

That should fall under Fair Use, not sure if the UK has anything similar to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[Serephino]

About filesharing and piracy in general, with music in particular, what they're doing is so ham-fisted. I regularly buy music online, but I've downloaded otherwise in the past, and it seems like such a paradox that pirated music is, besides being free, also easier to find and download. It's simply a better service.

I mean, when I download from various stores, the tracks aren't labeled or named properly, and they appear in no order at all. Which I guess is fine, ... except that one time I bought a concept album. Listening to it in random order sort of sucked, you know? I've also had difficulty listening to the music I paid for on some mp3 players, whereas pirated music gives me no trouble at all. I also ran into trouble with music I'd paid for in media player a while ago, as it suddenly demanded I download some update or another to listen to music I'd listened to previously. It just blows my mind, because the solution is so simple; provide a better service, without putting pointless restrictions on it. A system like what they have on Xbox Live would be perfect - buy "points" and use them to buy whatever you like. Or, heck, just let me pay for individual tracks without having to enter in all my information every time. Something like that. It's so ... I don't know, it says something about the way they see customers, I think, if they'd rather force us to use their terrible services, than try to improve and compete.

Oh well. Just my opinion. : )

I agree with you completely.  Here in the US file sharing has been illegal for a while.  It didn't stop pirating of course....  In fact, the shit they were doing with the lawsuits for millions of dollars was making it worse if anything.

I for one really wouldn't mind paying say.. $.99 per song.  The problem I have with purchased music is the damn copyright protection.  Some time last year I bought a handful of songs from Rhapsody.  I could only listen to the songs on my computer with their player I had to download.  I could also use their software to put it on my mp3 player.  That wasn't too bad, but then I got a new computer.  I couldn't transfer those songs.  The copyright protection made it so I could only have them on the computer they were downloaded on.  So basically I lost them.

I've heard they even started making it so you have to pay extra to put them on a device.  It's getting more and more ridiculous.  But I can do whatever I want with a pirated song.  I can use any media player I want, I can put them on any device I want, I can make audio CD's, I can store them on CD's.... 

Seriously, that stupid copyright protection is like me going to the store and buying a lamp, then being told that when I take it home I can only put it in certain rooms.  If I bought it, it's mine to do whatever the fuck I want with.  The sooner the music companies get this through their thick skulls the better off we'll be.  I'm sure there are lots of other people like me who would buy the songs if they were reasonably priced and there were no restrictions.

When the lawsuits weren't working they tried to do the same thing with disconnecting file sharers.  I don't know about other ISP's, but Comcast isn't cooperating.  The other option is to keep track of what you download and charge you for it, which is what Comcast said they would do if anything, but they don't even seem to be doing that much.     

[Silk]

Don't forget that it is illegal to play any copyrighted music in public without a permit of some sort... Oh how I miss the days you could walk into HMV And have a sneak hear at a song you may be considering, if anything that was free advertisement, not a breach of copyright.

[Jooo]

Well the biggest problem with it all for me is the "without a fair trial" part.  That's not only stupid but against human rights, they are saying that repeat offenders could be imprisoned, with no trial at all, that can ruin a persons life for something that they potentially didn't do.  The second is that they consider an IP address to be substantial evidence, for anyone who knows how routers work would find this laughable, this means someone can hack your router (i can hack into 95% of routers in around 15-20 mins) download stuff and that's t, it's 100% your fault apparently as the IP address only identifies the router used.

The other major problem is the amount of strain being put on ISPs, that's totally unfair.  People like BT and AOL have millions of users logging on every day, how are they meant to keep track of them all?  Also, i saw a statement online "if someone get's stabbed in the street, you don't go after the manufacturer of the knife do you?" which is totally true.  ISPs are providing a service, and it's very hard to stop that service being "abused".

[Jude]

This petition has been set up in response to the Government’s proposal to cut off internet access to those who are caught illegally downloading copyrighted files. We think this has one fundamental flaw, as illegal filesharers will simply hack into other peoples WiFi networks to do their dirty work. This will result in innocent people being disconnected from the internet. What's more, such a punishment should be dealt with in the proper way, in a court of law. This guilty until proven innocent approach violates basic human rights.

That statement is absolutely misleading and downright silly on so many levels.

First, they describe illegal filesharers as computer gurus who know how to hack into other people's WiFi networks; which is quite a claim really.  I don't have statistics to the contrary, just anecdotal evidence, but they're the ones making the claim anyway without any basis so the burden of proof isn't on me.  But I for one do not know a single person who's capable of hacking into other people's WiFi networks, all of the WiFi networks in my area are password protected, and if this law gets passed it would simultaneously encourage owners to do that.  You're already responsible for what is accessed on your network (child pornography, etc.), leaving your network without a password is very stupid.

For all of the pirates I know, and I've been guilty of it from time to time myself, none of us are particularly handy computer users.  I can do some minimal programming and I'm decent with setup and installation, but I am and have never been a hacker.  Nearly all of my friends are guilty of some piracy; even my father does it.  It's incredibly widespread, and if you believe it's wrong, then yes, it is a gigantic problem.  The argument that this will result in filesharers hacking into other people's net is stupid; if they could do that now, why would the pay for their own internet to begin with?  That's monumentally idiotic.  This law won't stop everyone, but it will certainly reduce the problem of illegal filesharing.

Guilty until proven innocent, would mean the Government could do whatever it wanted without the burden of proof, and if you wanted to stop them from punishing you, you'd have to present evidence that you're not guilty of it.  That's not at all what they're proposing.  Not bringing people to a court of law isn't the same thing.  And with how rampant the problem is, it probably isn't prudent to have a court case in every issue; honestly if you're a pirate you're lucky they're just disconnecting you and not prosecuting you under the current laws.

But the most ridiculous thing I've seen related to all of this is the fact that everyone's bandwagoning against it and yet I haven't seen a single copy of what the legislation actually proposes specifically.  Sure, if they disconnect you when you download an Elton John MP3 you don't own for the first time, that's not fair.  But what about the guy who's sharing a terrabyte of stolen PC games, DVDs, and professional software a month?  The letter of the law is very important to its application, and this issue is far more complicated than people are making it out to be.

Personally I don't want this legislation to happen either; I enjoy the current state of digital freedom, but I also realize that software companies, media corporations, and television studios are being financially hurt by the way we are currently handling the situation.  Yeah, people don't feel sorry for the RIAA, but it has a more tangible impact on PC gamers (who have to put up with stupid crap like SecuRom because of pirates), television stations that are struggling with poor ratings like NBC (which has lower viewership because a lot of people watch their favorite shows commercial free on streaming video sites like Megavideo), and the movie industry which often has their films leaked on or around release (and of course DVD rips that come out way after the fact).

I think scanning this thread I've seen a lot of extremist comments based on very little (and in most instances no) unbiased information on the subject.

http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/Page2830.asp

Here is the bill in question, I think anyway, I really suggest reading it before decrying it.

[Nadir]

Hacking wifi is easy. I was taught how to in a night course, so I could then protect a computer against it.

[MercyfulFate]

Well the biggest problem with it all for me is the "without a fair trial" part.  That's not only stupid but against human rights, they are saying that repeat offenders could be imprisoned, with no trial at all, that can ruin a persons life for something that they potentially didn't do.  The second is that they consider an IP address to be substantial evidence, for anyone who knows how routers work would find this laughable, this means someone can hack your router (i can hack into 95% of routers in around 15-20 mins) download stuff and that's t, it's 100% your fault apparently as the IP address only identifies the router used.

The other major problem is the amount of strain being put on ISPs, that's totally unfair.  People like BT and AOL have millions of users logging on every day, how are they meant to keep track of them all?  Also, i saw a statement online "if someone get's stabbed in the street, you don't go after the manufacturer of the knife do you?" which is totally true.  ISPs are providing a service, and it's very hard to stop that service being "abused".

Exactly, I mean I have a neighbor with an unsecured router even. I can download stuff and he can get blamed.

On top of that if more than one person is living in a household, how do you know who did it? What if someone came over and downloaded it?

[Serephino]

Exactly, I mean I have a neighbor with an unsecured router even. I can download stuff and he can get blamed.

On top of that if more than one person is living in a household, how do you know who did it? What if someone came over and downloaded it?

Those are good questions too.  Securing a network is a good idea, but it's such a hassle.  We have ours secured now, but didn't for a while.  I forget exactly what happened, but we had to reset the modem and found it easier to just leave it open rather than to set up 3 computers all over again.  At least I think it's secured now.

That, and when we had my ex friend living with us and she got her computer, we told her not to download anything because that's when the music companies were doing their stupid lawsuits.  We were buying our mp3's from a Russian company copyright protection free.  My boyfriend got on her computer for something and found Frostwire installed and over 80 mp3's on her system.  She was downloading to her heart's content after we went to bed.  And if she would've gotten caught our asses would've gotten in trouble. 

Someone that I was seeing a few years back had a friend staying with him for a week.  That friend broke his computer by downloading tons of porn while he was sleeping.  You can tell someone not to do something when they're staying in your home, but that doesn't mean they won't just do it anyway behind your back. 

Also, anything can be hacked into if you know how.  The average person doesn't, but identity thieves will to keep themselves from getting caught.  That's what people who do illegal things on the net do.  They know a cybernetic crimes person can track those things when doing an investigation.  Really smart hackers and thieves can set it up so that they go through several IP's to make them really really hard to track down.  My boyfriend has a program that changes his IP address every 3 seconds I think he said it was.  And if you have something like that, and say you route yourself through 4 IP addresses, then by the time whoever is trying to track you down gets through that mess your IP is changed and there is no trace.  That's how it was explained to me, and this comes from a person who wrote a WoW hack program and sold it.  It worked, it just alerted the compsny's GM's to its use too.  He really hates people who use hacks in games.  And he had a legal disclaimer so no one could sue him.

Yes, your average joe downloading one song wouldn't know about that stuff.  But...  those people who upload hundreds of dozens of songs, games, and such aren't your average joe.  If a person does that much uploading and downloading, chances are they know their way around a computer.  And if a law like that passes, those people aren't going to want to lose their net are they?  Logic tells us they will do anything and everything they can to keep their net so they can continue uploading and downloading.  If they know how to hack into someone else's network chances are they will.  That way someone else gets in trouble and is penalized and not them.  There are people out there who would do that and not care.  And exactly how would one prove their innocence if there was no trial?

[RubySlippers]

Music companies and artists could solve this by selling customizable CD's with exactly what songs you want for say market price, $15.00 for a full CD would be good. But one song out of a whole CD of songs I don't like is not exactly good practice anymore.

As for filesharing is downloading from a site that is commercial filesharing, I would say no. Thankfully I'm in the US and we have strong Constitutional rights that would be hard to do the same thing with unless your a terrorist or something. They do seem to be getting around this for national security concerns.

[Kotah]

Capitalism.

Before you know it, you'll go to a concert and have to rent special ear pieces to listen to the music.

Heh...

This whole thing is ridiculousness.

[MercyfulFate]

Capitalism.

Before you know it, you'll go to a concert and have to rent special ear pieces to listen to the music.

Heh...

This whole thing is ridiculousness.

SHH! Don't give them ideas!