Illegal downloaders to be 'banned' from Internet

[zimboy69]

if they do this then whats next

no more 9/11 sites?


from the times web site





Internet users could be banned over illegal downloads

People who illegally download films and music will be cut off from the internet under new legislative proposals to be unveiled next week.

Internet service providers (ISPs) will be legally required to take action against users who access pirated material, The Times has learnt.

Users suspected of wrongly downloading films or music will receive a warning e-mail for the first offence, a suspension for the second infringement and the termination of their internet contract if caught a third time, under the most likely option to emerge from discussions about the new law.

Broadband companies who fail to enforce the “three-strikes” regime would be prosecuted and suspected customers’ details could be made available to the courts. The Government has yet to decide if information on offenders should be shared between ISPs.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/arti cle3353387.ece

[zimboy69]

ive also wondered about this
they have said if you download 3 times you will be banned
but dosent copyright say you can download anything you own


how do they know you dont own it ?


and if you didnt and got caught you could just go out and buy it


unless there going to just be judge & jury also would there be a appeal
or do we now have no rights

one more thing why would isp want to enforce this


if people dont download loads why do 99% of them need anymore than 20 gigs a month

when i play online games i find i use about 10 gigs a month and thats playing over 30 hours a week

so even if you doubled what i played then 20 gigs would do
so only 1% of the contry should only need 50gigs or more for ligitimate reasons

so arnt the isps going to lose money with everyone taking cheaper connections?

and streaming video how dose this work is this downloading or not ?
cause if it is then even watching 9//11 films from youtube you could get banned from the net

as all of these have copyright

[zimboy69]

im for this everyone should spread the word and all go for this


this is were we can strike them back


copied from a web site forgot were but we can start a movement now




The Media Industry is getting away with murder these days (and they complain about piracy! ha!)

The only way they will isten to 'the public' is a BOYCOTT!

NO MEDIA MONTH JULY 2008

LET IT BE SAID HERE FIRST AND SPREAD TO THE CORNERS OF THE GLOBE. I PROPOSE A ONE MONTH BOYCOTT OF ALL MEDIA - DO NOT GO TO THE CINEMA (KILL THE 4TH JULY BLOCKBUSTER WEEKEND); CANCEL YOUR TV (YOU CAN PROBABLY GET A CHEAPER DEAL A MONTH LATER AS A 'NEW' CUSTOMER); DO NOT BUY ANY CD'S OR DVD'S; DO NOT BUY ANY BOOKS OR NEWSPAPERS. HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS MOST - THEIR PROFIT!!!

Come on folks, let get viral with this.

I realise that getting Joe Family to commit to this is difficult but folks have to realise that if the MEDIA industry has their was, then eventually your Grandma will be in court for ripping a CD to her iPod!

WE ARE CONSUMERS, HEAR US ROAR!!

[telecasterisation]

Apparently someone who works with my wife's sister got a letter yesterday from Virgin. Apparently she is the account holder and knew nothing of her husband's downloading habits.

I wrote to Virgin asking for clarification when the news about this originally broke but never got any reply. Anyone wanting music files will obviously move off the peer-2-peer networks and simply use an .flv downloading programme, grab the video off YouTube and then convert it with an 'flv converter to mp3 - no-one is then any the wiser, no risk of viruses, much quicker and no dodgy or fake files.

Will Virgin also be chasing those who acquire videos from p2p networks or just music? It is all a little vague - anyone know anything more?


'Virgin Media and BPI join forces to attack illegal filesharing

By Chris Williams Published Friday 6th June 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
Virgin Media will launch a campaign against illegal downloading next week, when it’ll begin firing off warning letters to subscribers the BPI believes are sharing copyright music files.

The move is being billed by the cable firm as an “education campaign”. At this stage there will be no “three strikes” process; customers who continue to fileshare illegally will not be disconnected.

Accounts identified as being used for illegal music sharing by the record industry will receive two letters: one from Virgin Media and one from the BPI. Investigators will monitor copyright-infringing BitTorrent swarms and log Virgin Media IP addresses, which will be passed on to the ISP to identify the customers.

Virgin Media will distribute both letters, and no personally identifiable information will be disclosed to the BPI.

The letters will include advice on “how to prevent account misuse”, “avoid the risk of legal action”, and warn customers that peer to peer networks carry “increased threats from viruses and spyware”, a Virgin Media statement said. You can read the Virgin Media letter here and the BPI letter here (PDFs).

The campaign will run as a trial for a flexible period of about two months. Its effect on behaviour will then be reviewed. Virgin Media claims a lot of account holders may not be aware their kids or others are using their line to download music illegally, for example via an unsecured Wi-Fi network.

The BPI has been pushing for enforcement alongside education, but Virgin Media said it was unwilling to disconnect customers who don’t stop accessing illegal music. A spokesman said today: “It’s a bit of a judgement call for us to be making threats of disconnection or account suspension. We weren’t willing to do that.”

“There are now so many lawful cheap and free music services out there that we believe an education campaign in partnership with the BPI is the best way forward.”

The ISP industry is under enormous government pressure to cut a deal with the record industry following a successful lobbying campaign by the BPI. Ministers have vowed to introduce anti-filesharing legislation if a self-regulatory solution is not found.

The BPI has recently begun threatening ISPs with court injunctions if they do not agree to act against illegal filesharers. One such threat sent to Carphone Warehouse received short shrift from the firm’s bosses, who said they would never disconnect their customers and that they didn’t believe legislation will be brought forward.

Virgin Media appears to have taken a less confrontational approach to its dealings with the record industry. Although the “education campaign” is toothless in this first trial phase, getting a major ISP to publicly adopt a role in battling illegal downloading is a big win for the BPI.

Its chief executive Geoff Taylor said in a statement: “Education is absolutely key to reducing the extent of illegal downloading... this joint campaign with Virgin Media is the first step towards achieving that goal.” A survey commissioned by the record industry earlier this year claimed most illegal downloaders would stop if warned.

The BPI struck a deal with Tiscali to implement a full three strikes last year. Four out of 21 warned account holders ended up disconnected from the internet. The deal fell apart however in a row over who should pay for the process'

[zimboy69]

this will be the end of free speech after music and films will come views and opinions that dont follow the goverment line will get u banned
anyone saying anything against the goverment will be removed from the net

all this will be under the terrorist act

then it will be only information provided by big corporations or goverment


10 years and we will be monitored at everything on the net

say good bye to nine eleven sites


there was a way the goverments of the world could help movies and music
if everyone paid a small amount of money eg £2 on there internet bill so it was built in there internet package
and they monitored what was watched or listened to then they could give a % of this £2 to that copyright

so for example coldplay brings out a album and 10% of people get it and only that in a month then they get 10% of the money

this would give them a greater income than all there albums todate in one album

films and books could all do the same

[chek]

"The campaign is part of a partnership between Virgin and British recording industry group BPI (formerly named the British Phonographic Industry). About 800 letters have been sent out to Virgin users thus far, although BPI says that "thousands more" would be sent in the near future. Printed on the envelopes is the text, "Important: If you don't read this, your broadband could be disconnected."

Here's where this partnership appears to reach a fork, however. While the BPI told the BBC that it's prepared to back up the "education" campaign with legal action, Virgin described the threat as a mistake, and said that the wording would be reviewed in August. Furthermore, Virgin told the BBC Newsbeat that there was "absolutely no possibility" of legal action being taken against users as part of the current campaign, and that it wouldn't hand over user information "under any circumstances." It sounds like Virgin didn't fully realize what it was getting into when it hopped into bed with the BPI last month".

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080703-virgin-bpi-at-odds-as-fi rst-infringement-letters-go-out.html

Meanwhile, on the other side of the woods....

"Legal broadband subscription services that permit file sharing may appear on the market by the year's end, according to music industry sources - after government intervention brought both music suppliers and ISPs to the table.

The UK would become the second country after South Korea where the music business has agreed to offer licenses to file sharing services in a bid to reverse declining revenues. The co-operation follows the intervention of "Brown's Fist", the former advisor and Parliamentary Under-Secretary at BERR (the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) Baroness Shriti Vadera. Vadera is understood to have threatened both the ISP and music businesses with reform and policy intervention, threats which encouraged both parties to open negotiations.

The government is understood to be extremely reluctant to intervene with legislation as it threatened to do earlier this year, and cross-industry agreement to offer attractive consumer broadband music services would mean it wouldn't have to.

No deals have been signed yet and significant details have yet to be addressed. These include the royalty share between mechanical, sound recording and publishing rights holders, and administration issues. A significant amount of music released has never been licensed digitally - so should a music service provider ignore it, or attempt to pay the owners? As for price, this will be determined by the ISPs. However, sources are confident that Q4 2008 or Q1 2009 will see such the first of these offered to the public.

The move would represent the most radical supply-side reform ever considered by the music business in the modern era.

The major difference between the next generation of broadband-backed subscription schemes that are now under discussion, and those in operation today, is that future services would permit and encourage exchanges of music between subscribers. Most of today's subscription services such as eMusic and Napster permit the subscriber to download songs but not share them. There are exceptions: Omnifone's licensed mobile service Music Station permits "sharing" - Music Station subscribers can share playlists and the receiving device is populated with songs centrally over the network. QTrax offers a legal P2P service but this is ad-supported, rather than subscription-based.

The services require copyright holders to suspend, albeit privately and voluntarily, the exclusive right to copy a sound recording, in exchange for a license (and no doubt financial guarantees).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/26/music_service_provider_talks/

[zimboy69]

[wepmob2000]

[Dogsmilk]

[Desmond]

" but dosent copyright say you can download anything you own "

Actually that's a common misconception, there is a fair use documentation in the US only I believe (but that's been reduced by the DMCA) which could be used as a defense but it is certainly not defined in written law that you can make copies for personal use.

[zimboy69]

[Desmond]

"well dont you think they should point it out and make it more clear"

I don't think they would hunt you down for it, and it may prove to be a good defense, it's just not enshrined in law.

"if i downloaded these from a torrent would i be breaking the law"

Technically, yes and I imagine you would may find it difficult to prove you used to own them. But the media companies have bigger fish to fry, I seriously doubt there would be an legal repercussions.

[truthseeker john]

I thought that with file sharing parts of a file come from different users so it's difficult to know who is downloading what.

[Desmond]

No it makes no real difference it doesn't affect the detection. Separating it into parts doesn't really alter anything, you're still downloading parts from someone else's whole file and so you can easily detect the receiver (you) the sender (them) and the file that is being sent, also the parts tend to be "labeled" anyway so it's easy to know what file they came from. Otherwise recompiling them at the receiver end would be just as difficult.