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

Started by Nadir, November 23, 2009, 10:49:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nadir

There is a law getting pushed through in the UK that will lead to people who fileshare (which isn't pirating) being disconnected from their internet connections without trial.

It really needs to be stopped. The petition of UK citizens to sign against this law is here. Stephen Fry has offered to buy all signers a pint.   

QuoteThis 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.

Neroon

It's another example of the Brown regime's intent to increasingly limit the freedoms of the British public.  The creeping spread of CCTV,, the attempt to introduce biometric ID cards and the failed (thank God!) legislation to give the security services the right to examine the email and phone records of anyone in the UK without a warrant are symptomatic of this need to regulate all aspects of our lives.

Big Brother is watching and his name is Gordon.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Callie Del Noire

I've always thought the UK danced a lot closer on the edge of personal liberties (and the lack thereof) than the US. A sad thing considering the country was the birthplace of one of the first democracies with the creation of the Magna Carta.

I fear that the government of the US (and UK) are using the fear of the public to justify all sorts of things. And special interests are always going to get stuff like this slid into the books with as little oversight as they can.

Trieste

Quote from: Neroon on November 23, 2009, 11:18:43 AM
It's another example of the Brown regime's intent to increasingly limit the freedoms of the British public.  The creeping spread of CCTV,, the attempt to introduce biometric ID cards and the failed (thank God!) legislation to give the security services the right to examine the email and phone records of anyone in the UK without a warrant are symptomatic of this need to regulate all aspects of our lives.

Big Brother is watching and his name is Gordon.

HYou guys elected the wrong Brown. Throw out Gordon, elect Alton.

consortium11

Quote from: Trieste on November 23, 2009, 12:20:56 PM
HYou guys elected the wrong Brown. Throw out Gordon, elect Alton.

Haven't actually had a chance to elect Brown yet... he got the position by default, a lovely side-effect of our parliamentary system

MercyfulFate

Wow, this is disgusting. For all the things listed in this thread I honestly would probably never visit the UK, which is sad because I want to.

Sometimes I wonder if Orwell really saw these things coming, or if 1984 actually influenced people to do these things. There's a belief out there that Orwell based it off of what he saw working for the BBC, and perhaps saw more coming down the road.

I mean who writes about tele-screens everywhere that watch you, and years later there's an extensive CCTV system that does just that?

Revolverman

I really feel for the British people, being squeezed in a vice by a government that's telling you its to protect you.

Out with Labor.

consortium11

Quote from: Revolverman on November 23, 2009, 01:03:03 PM
I really feel for the British people, being squeezed in a vice by a government that's telling you its to protect you.

Out with Labor.

Honestly, it's not a Labour/Conservative divide here... the Torries may traditionally be the party of civil liberties (at least of the big two) but they're not a whole lot better now... and especially not on the day to day aspect. On the headline issues, yes they opposed 42 day detention... but they'll keep 28 days. Hell, they want to repeal the Human Right's Act...

Away from the headline issues they're little better than Laour. Once "hug a hoodie" got sent to its deserved grave and Cameron decided to try to beef up his image the standard Tory way. They didn't oppose the ammendments Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 that made a huge (and very vaguely defined) amount of erotic material illegal. On a whole host of personal liberty issues the best the Tories can say is "not quite as bad as Laour"... and that's without getting into the mess that is the EU and the fact someone who has never been elected in her life is now effectively our foreign secretary and can speak for us...

Sycamore

There are a hundred and one ways this will fail, and not actually stop piracy.
There are a hundred and one different reasons why this is immoral and harmful to ISPs and to citizens.
There are a hundred and one ways this encourages technological ignorance.

Instead of listing them all I will say this. Peter Mandelson a.k.a Sith Mandelson, who has been kicked out of parliament for corruption not once but twice, put forward these laws. This occurred the day after he had dinner with a multimillionaire anti-piracy nut. Yay for democracy. Someone actually threw green custard over him in protest of his greed (Although it wasn't due to this law).

I vote for liberal democrats for a reason, not because they are left wing, but because they genuinely care about their citizens.


Vekseid

Quote
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:19:03 -0700
From: website-exclusion <website-exclusion@phorm.com>
To: vekseid@elliquiy.com
Subject: Publisher Exclusion Request Autoreply
Parts/Attachments:
   1   OK    ~18 lines  Text
   2 Shown   ~94 lines  Text
----------------------------------------


Thank you for your submission to the Phorm website exclusion list. If there are no obvious grounds to doubt the
legitimacy of the request the URL will be blocked as soon as possible, usually within 48 hours.

Requests must be made by the legitimate owner of the domain. If we have questions regarding your domain Phorm may take a
number of steps, including attempting to contact the domain administrator by email for confirmation of this request. If
the request remains questionable and is not confirmed within 10 days, the URL will be removed from the exclusion list and
an email will be sent informing you of this decision.

Where applicable, please ensure that the Administrative Contact details for this domain are up to date. If you need to
update them, please resubmit your request when the amended details are visible in the WhoIs database - (use a public
whois service such as http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx [who.godaddy.com] if you are unsure it has been updated)

>_>

Neroon

Quote from: MercyfulFate on November 23, 2009, 01:00:25 PM
Sometimes I wonder if Orwell really saw these things coming, or if 1984 actually influenced people to do these things. There's a belief out there that Orwell based it off of what he saw working for the BBC, and perhaps saw more coming down the road.

The theory that Orwell's experiences in the BBC during WWII influenced 1984 certainly has merit.  Certainly, the secret service censors who edited the scripts for all broadcasts were situated in a room just down the corridor from Orwell's own.  Their room number was 101.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

MercyfulFate

Quote from: Neroon on November 23, 2009, 04:33:37 PM
The theory that Orwell's experiences in the BBC during WWII influenced 1984 certainly has merit.  Certainly, the secret service censors who edited the scripts for all broadcasts were situated in a room just down the corridor from Orwell's own.  Their room number was 101.

Very true, and the various ministries were based on real ones. The protagonist creates a war hero out of thin air, which in a lot of ways reminded me of Pat Tillman. He was a guy who joined the US Military and turned down an NFL contract with the cardinals, they blatantly lied about his death saying he died heroically fighting the enemy. In fact, he was killed by friendly fire.

Emmanuel Goldstein always drew direct parallels to Osama Bin Laden as well for me. The shadowy leader of an international terrorist organization who's image they throw up on TV to scare and enrage the people.


Hemingway

Quote from: MercyfulFate on November 23, 2009, 01:00:25 PMSometimes I wonder if Orwell really saw these things coming, or if 1984 actually influenced people to do these things. There's a belief out there that Orwell based it off of what he saw working for the BBC, and perhaps saw more coming down the road.

I don't know about Orwell, but Alan Moore did see it coming.

Anyway - is this the same as that ACTA deal in the works? Because that worries me. I'm about ready to don a Guy Fawkes mask and take to the streets.

Silk

Quote from: Hemingway on November 24, 2009, 05:22:52 PM
I don't know about Orwell, but Alan Moore did see it coming.

Anyway - is this the same as that ACTA deal in the works? Because that worries me. I'm about ready to don a Guy Fawkes mask and take to the streets.

If it does go through I will be arranging a protest in front of whitehall all in guy Fawkes masks, chanting "Remember remember the 11Th of November" Maybe they will get the point.

Sycamore

Quote from: Silk on November 24, 2009, 07:09:37 PM
If it does go through I will be arranging a protest in front of whitehall all in guy Fawkes masks, chanting "Remember remember the 11Th of November" Maybe they will get the point.
http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/the-freedom-bill/8-the-right-to-protest/
You (unfortunatly) may not have that right. Depends on whether or not the government decides you are allowed to.

Revolverman

Quote from: Sycamore on November 25, 2009, 01:28:26 PM
http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/the-freedom-bill/8-the-right-to-protest/
You (unfortunatly) may not have that right. Depends on whether or not the government decides you are allowed to.

That makes my brain and my balls hurt.

Hemingway

Call me paranoid, but I think there's writing on the wall here.

MercyfulFate

Quote from: Sycamore on November 25, 2009, 01:28:26 PM
http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/the-freedom-bill/8-the-right-to-protest/
You (unfortunatly) may not have that right. Depends on whether or not the government decides you are allowed to.

That's disturbing but that do that in the US, force you to get a permit which is a direct violation of the right to peaceably assemble.

Jooo

Quote from: Eden on November 23, 2009, 10:49:33 AM
Stephen Fry has offered to buy all signers a pint.

I was unaware of this.
Any one have any way to contact, i pretty much forced most of my friends to sign this.  I'm not exactly a hardcore pirate myself, but this law is just stupid, it's like democracy and human rights have gone out of the window.

Nadir

It has nothing to do with pirates, and everything to do with the people they will use to shield themselves with.

consortium11

I read one of the greatest lines I think I've seen in a long time on this issue...

Was Jesus stealing from the fishmongers and bakers of Galilee when he turned 2 loaves and a fish into a feast to feed the crowd?

Sycamore

Quote from: Eden on November 26, 2009, 08:40:55 AM
It has nothing to do with pirates, and everything to do with the people they will use to shield themselves with.
Although this is partially true....
It's also to do with the system needed to implement this will cost ISPs millions. The statistics that copyright associations knock out are ludicrous and horribly biased beyond belief. I tell you now it will cost the ISPs far more, than the record industries etc will gain back in profit. To top this off, it won't even stop piracy. People will simply use file storage hosts and encryption.

I've seen statistics suggest that billions are being lost every year through piracy for the UK alone. Yet considering there is no overhead for production with piracy (due to the fact it isn't stealing, it IS copying), and there is absolutely no way that anyone can estimate how many of the pirates will go out and buy the media if they have no other option, how on earth do you calculate how much is truly lost in sales? This is the equivalent of me counting the value of the lost possible sale on top of the material value lost from production of the media (which in the case of piracy is nil). On top of this, honestly I don't even believe UK citizens have half the disposable income the copyright associations suggest they would be spending on media if piracy were stopped. Especially considering the economic downturn we are taking.

Piracy is a symptom rather than a root problem. There are numerous moral reasons why people pirate, but I'll keep them to myself instead, so as not to derail the thread.

Nadir

Also - I do not understand how they think filesharing using the internet is any different to someone taping tracks off the radio.

If they are so enraged about filesharing, what does that suggest to the people who buy a physical copy? That they purchase the right to listen to the track, not the physical object but the sound embedded in that object, so wouldn't the company be obliged to replace the physical object if it get damaged?

It is such a tangle. 

Hemingway

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. : )

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

Quote from: Revolverman on November 26, 2009, 03:50:19 PM
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

Quote from: Hemingway on November 26, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
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

QuoteThis 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

Quote from: Jooo on November 27, 2009, 03:26:41 AM
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

Quote from: MercyfulFate on November 27, 2009, 12:32:16 PM
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.
Finally in a rage we scream at the top of our lungs into this lonely night, begging and pleading they stop sucking up dry.There as guilty as sin, still as they always do when faced with an angry mob: they wipe the blood from their mouths and calm us down with their words of milk and honey. So the play begins, we the once angry mob are now pacified and sit quietly entertained. But the curtain exists far from now becasue their lies have been spoken. My dear, have you forgotten what comes next? This is the part where we change the world.

MercyfulFate

Quote from: Kotah on November 28, 2009, 10:02:44 PM
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!