Wolfie Zero

A good article came up today in regards to what I posted yesterday about UK ISPs banning people who download music and films illegally.

5 Reasons Why Illegal Downloaders Will Not Face a UK Ban

1. This proposal was a draft consultation green paper, defined as “a proposal without any commitment to action.” The government receives many of these on a daily basis. They are like junk mail at Number 10 Downing Street. The Prime Minister’s toilet paper is more important than most green papers, and both are usually filed in the same place.

2. This proposal is totally and completely unworkable in the real world. ISPs will not accept liability for the contents of packets (nor should they), and it would be impossible for them to open and check if every single download and upload was legal or not without the entire Internet grinding to halt. This isn’t in the best interests of the government, the ISPs or the voters. Banning customers and exposing yourself to billions in liability isn’t a good business strategy. Criminalizing six million citizens and inconveniencing the rest is not a vote winner.

3. It would be impossible to tell the difference between illegal downloading and legal activities such as downloading software patches, using torrents to share stuff legally, playing online video games, using VoIP, photo sharing, telecommuting, and many others. The resistance from the private sector would be as strong as it would from the general public.

4. The very idea of this goes against the ruling of the European Court, which says EU member states are not obligated to disclose personal information about suspected file sharers. It would also fly in the face of Article 10 of the European freedom of expression laws, which gives every European the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

5. WiFi piggybacking and encrypted packets make it impossible to tell who is downloading what in the first place. These techniques are only getting more sophisticated, while for the most part, the content industries collectively remain as dumb as a box of hair.

So in summary:

Insert Toilet Flushing Sound FX Here

.Torrent Freak ]

It would be cool to see them right as it does make the ineternet a worring place where you are being followed. Mind you, if you are a high-volume downloader, you can get checked on already on why you are downloading so much; goes down to the 30GB fair-use policy.

Laters.

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.

Six million broadband users are estimated to download files illegally every year in this country in a practice that music and film companies claim is costing them billions of pounds in lost revenue annually.

Britain’s four biggest internet providers – BT, Tiscali, Orange and Virgin Media – have been in talks with Hollywood’s biggest studio and distribution companies for six months over a voluntary scheme.

Parallel negotiations between Britain’s music industry and individual internet providers have been dragging on for two years.

Major sticking points include who will arbitrate disputed allegations, for example when customers claim to have been the victim of “wi-fi piggybacking”, in which users link up to a paid-for wireless network that is not their own. Another outstanding disagreement is how many enforcements the internet companies will be expected to initiate and how quickly warning e-mails would be sent.

[…]

[ source: Times Online ]

Seems a bit wrong this to me. I understan business and such like, but the invasion of privacy seems a tad bit worring. But the anon-sence is slowly being lost from the internet.

I personally don’t download music or films (or TV for that matter) that I would HAVE to pay for as I like to reward; but if it’s free, I’ll take it, but only if they are offering it though. But I still don’t agree with this action as it leaves a lot of questions such as what is illegal download, espically of music. Is an unsigned indie band who don’t offer free music classed in this action, or is music by The Offspring who support downloads of their music for free in on this? The lines are a bit hazy.

Laters.

Ars Technica today…

Sony BMG’s chief anti-piracy lawyer: “Copying” music you own is “stealing”

Duluth, Minnesota — Testimony today in Capitol Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas quickly and inadvertently turned to the topic of fair use when Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, was called to the stand to testify. Pariser said that file-sharing is extremely damaging to the music industry and that record labels are particularly affected. In doing so, she advocated a view of copyright that would turn many honest people into thieves.

Pariser noted that music labels make no money on touring, radio, or merchandise, which leaves the company particularly exposed to the negative effects of file-sharing. “It’s my personal belief that Sony BMG is half the size now as it was in 2000,” she said, thanks to piracy. In Pariser’s view, “when people steal, when they take music without compensation, we are harmed.”

Pariser has a very broad definition of “stealing.” When questioned by Richard Gabriel, lead counsel for the record labels, Pariser suggested that what millions of music fans do is actually theft. The dirty deed? Ripping your own CDs or downloading songs you already own.

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, “When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Making “a copy” of a purchased song is just “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy’,” she said.

Countless studies have shown that the majority of music on portable music players like the iPod comes from sources other than download services. For most people, that music is comprised primarily of songs “ripped” from CD collections to MP3 or some other comparable format. Indeed, most portable music players comes with software (like iTunes) which is designed to facilitate the easy ripping of CDs. According to Pariser’s view, this is stealing.

[…]

A bit much don’t you think. I can’t see how you justify making a claim that backups (legit) harm the music industry? Used to do it all the time with CDs onto tapes because you didn’t have a portable CD player (back then cost around £50).

Kinda makes sales a bit weird if you buy two copies because that’s not returning a realistic view on what the sales a like on the album.

I dunno, seems the music industry is getting so far up its own ass that artists will be saying soon that you have to buy two copies of their album. If that happens, I’m sticking to unsigned bands!

Laters.