""There are technologies available which can filter Internet traffic. These can identify particular types of file (eg music files), check whether the file is subject to copyright protection and then check whether the person offering the file for download has the right to do so. If no such permission is found, the filter can block the download. These technologies vary in their effectiveness and cannot guarantee 100% accuracy given the lack of conformity between different computer and software technologies.""

it may seam like a hard to justife clame but it is suprisling easy

what you do is you route the packets throught your holodeck where a peptural motaion mechene checks it and uses a universal translator to look for illagle files and a phaser shoots them to knock down there shields and a nano viras to take out the copyrighted metrail and of corse all this takes palce in a black hole travling faster than light so it all happens instantley

So we've basically got a 3 months trial period in which to perfect our detection avoidance techniques. If we get a letter or two within this three months, well they have no second stage to escalate to, so we can just rethink and try again until we get it right.

Something like tor, or routing torrents through anonymous proxies seems like the obvious way forwards.

I have yet to find a legal use for this technology - why don't ISPs simply block it in it's entirety?

Are there any legal uses of P2P? I don't mean theoretical legal uses, I mean actual real ones. This people are legally using P2P for right now that can't be done by the normal (and simple) basic download.

I strongly suspect there isn't.

will work by checking filenames? So rename your files to Track1.mp3, Track2.mp3 etc and it'll never get them. Or track1.mq3 and let the user rename it.

Also, "f the download is in breach of copyright the filter can block the download before it has been completed. No breach therefore occurs" doesn't seem to matter- you're only downloading one small section at a time from a user rather than the whole file.

Finally, could someone please tell me why a TOTALLY anonymous P2P system hasn't yet been created? Automatic 2-way TOR-ing, strong encryption required on every single connection and a secure P2P search (i.e. IP addresses for each search are returned hidden away behind some sort of one-way hash). Essentially it'd be almost like a distributed data-paypal- the source and destination PCs would never see each others' IP addresses. Or even anything particularly close to the others' IP.

You could have it created ostensibly for "corporate security and data-dissemination" reasons.

As most of you know P2P accounts for most internet traffic now days and most of that is the illegal stuff. If the ISP’s cut the P2P traffic they can stick more customers on to each pipe while cutting costs. Perfect business sense, I expect all ISP’s to follow this lead.

Let’s hope the artists take advantage of web2.0 offerings and now drop their record labels for more profitable on line deals!

So.....if ssl encryption is sued by the torrent exchange in question, can these monkeys still track us......I mean me, I mean, oh, crap......Ok. Can thay still determine who's "thieving" this content?

And are we scared of a Government that can't even keep it's strongest constituencies? (Goodbye Glasgow East....lol!)

The article seems to suggest that option A4 would be an ideal solution. Let me just check... this is the plan whereby privately owned corporations will be allowed to decide which files I am or am not permitted to download from the internet, giving them the ability to censor at will? Sounds great, sign me up.

F**k me. They still don't get it do they.

Not all P2P is illegal, and content monitoring will only work if the material is in-the-clear (there being encrypted P2P systems already). How is the content filter to work? re-encode the material to a common form, then do a musical analysis, not-by-note, to see if it is copyright? Digital watermarking? As if this can be enforced without mandatory DRM on all material on the 'net.

What would they then do. Ban non-DRM material, and make it an offence to send media without DRM. What then about people who are prepared to give some of their material away for free, or even the 'tasters' that record companies put out.

Standard argument. Can they enforce it? What about platforms that will not support the DRM (Linux again, as the Media industries know that you can capure media from inside the system once DRM has been stripped if you have access to the OS source code).

Really, the effective solution is to make sure that possible infringers have the access to the music they want at a price they are prepared to pay (which in most cases is not 'free'), on all the platforms they want to use, and rely on the morals of people.

No. What we will get is a blanket P2P ban, or at least have it throttled, which will hit the (admittidly minority) of legal P2P users. Coupled with some automated alerting of high volume users with use analysis of their traffic. Hmm. Isn't this what we already have.

I take it anyone who thinks there is no use for P2P hasn’t downloaded any legitimate free software lately.

I firmly believe that tux shall multiply go forth and rule the world

The filters will be installed and then the mission creep begins. First music, then movies & videos, then software, then pr0n, then 'any information of use to terrorists' and finally you're right to think, speak and electronically communicate freely.

Fail.

Carnivore for P2P?

'Option A4' sounds a lot like it. And if you can do that, well, why not monitor everything?

And of course, copies of everything to the Stazi. How do you think you are going to enjoy living in a glass box? I think this might turn out to be worse, from a civil liberties point of view, that anything so far.

However, it remains to be seen who is going to provide the required investment.

Oh - sorry, silly question!

Either the ISPs - via reducing their bandwidth costs - we loose.

The media firms - via increased sales - hmmm, they MIGHT be in for a nasty shock here...

Or, if all else fails, then the government can probably think up a 'green' tax, I mean, there's such a wide range of possibilities, I'd go for a blanket tax on Internet users, based on the ISP Package Bandwidth as a measure of C02 emission - perfect choice, gives ISPs bandwidth reduction they all need and pays for the monitoring...

Phew, so it's a case of waiting for the letter and then seeing how it makes you feel. I'd just scribble 'return to musical dinosaureses' on the letter and pop it back in the postbox.

MCISP: "I'm bored with DRM. With the content I can block, I can filter things 900 to 1200 times better than any human."

User: "Now wait a minute, I'm downloading porno!"

MCISP: "I've gotten 2,416 times smarter since then."

User: "If you think you're..."

MCISP: "You wouldn't want me to print this out on a VDT at the police station, would you?"

User: "You wouldn't dare!"

You've been warned.

...until the first MMO gamer is targeted.

"We notice that you seem to be constantly downloading and uploading information somewhere every evening and weekend - this means you are obviously using P2P software and are therefore IN BREACH OF YOUR CONTRACT! SUBMIT TO US"

And then, when you disagree and they demand to check your PC, they'll get you for some other thing....

"Well we notice that you have a Dark Knight desktop. This movie stars someone who is now dead and I find that offensively sexual - prepare to go to jail, as per some stupid law the government recently passed...."

Frankly, if I were to ever recieve a letter telling me I'm a suspected copyright violator I would contact my ISP, inform them I have no interest working with a company that will monitor my private usage and then request my migration number.

Surely we wouldn't put up with BT using a "filtering software" on our phone calls, why should we put up with ISPs using software to monitor our internet?

...ooooh now I'm really scared; what next, a postcard?

"I have yet to find a legal use for this technology - why don't ISPs simply block it in it's entirety?

Are there any legal uses of P2P? I don't mean theoretical legal uses, I mean actual real ones. This people are legally using P2P for right now that can't be done by the normal (and simple) basic download.

I strongly suspect there isn't."

Not very bright then are you? Never heard of the BBC iPlayer download service (not the flash stuff)? What about Channel 4's 4oD service? They are both legal and use P2P technology. Of course they both aren't very well implemented but that's neither here nor there.

Then there's all those Linux distro's you can get using torrents. Whole, free, legal, DVD's of free to use and modify software. Knoppix, Ubuntu, RedHat, etc...

Then there's the online multi-user games like WoW. A lot of those are distributed as torrents now. Using P2P.

In fact there are loads and loads of current legal uses for this technology, which is, let's face it, popular not only because it's free but also because it is actually a very fast and efficient way to transfer huge amounts of data between lots of people.

Get with the programme AC. You are a dinosaur.

To ask if there are any 'legal' uses of file sharing assumes that everything being shared is automatically illegal - which is a bad start. If I sit on a torrent distributing ABC or uTorrent, that's perfectly legal.

Labelling P2P sharing of anything as itself illegal just holds back distribution of perfectly legal (but huge) files, such as scientific or government reports where there are no restrictions on copying them.

More worrying, though, is where the 'music industry' is getting these names from. I suspect it's going to be an approach along the lines of Mark Twain's suggestion to 'beat your son once a day - even if you don't know what for, he certainly will'. The RIAA are going to pull names (or rather, IP addresses) out of a hat and send off letters using the ISPs as their catspaw. The letters themselves will have a chilling effect on the recipients - whether or not they've ever been sharing files. They will now think they're being watched and change their behaviour.

Let's keep our fingers crossed for the first test case.

There really ARE legal P2P uses. Linux Distro's being the one I use, but I'm sure that one of the major IT manufacturers proposed a P2P method to distribute fixes, and the BBC dabbled with the original iPlayer.

But for all you anonymous 'experts' out there, how do you 'ban' P2P? You can stop Grockster, Kazaa, eDonkey, Overnet, Torrent, limewire (does it still exist!) along with all the *CURRENT* P2P applications, but hey, TCP/IP, which the net runs on, allows point-to-point datastream connections from two machines. All you have to do is come up with another P2P protocol which has not been seen yet, and you have got around the filter. Or is there a magic piece of technology that I don't know about that can look at a random data packet and go "Ha, this is part of a P2P stream. Quash".

And if the P2P designers really wanted to be clever, it would be possible to devise a UDP/IP protocol using stateless connections, with out-of-order packets routed via multiple hosts using different ports, possibly with each packet encoded differently. Block that!

It becomes a technology war, where the side with the largest number and cleverist deep-hackers winning. I would place my money with the P2P designers, quite honestly, as these people work without financial reward (the other side needs salaried people). And if it is decided that such applications become illegal to write, then you end up with a locked down Internet, where a new technology like the World-Wide-Web (as it was when it was new) can never happen again. I think people forget what the Internet was like using ftp, Archie and Gofer. There *will* be new killer apps that will change the Internet overnight that we cannot yet imagine.

I'm sure Microsoft, Google et. al. would love it if they get given the decision making power to decide what we can run on the Internet by Governments. Think of the revenue generating power that they would be given.

And the AC who believe that they can be filtered at source just does not understand about how P2P and computers in general work. What constitutes the start of a transmission, if you are getting parts of the work from a dozen different P2P systems around the Internet? P2P is NOT a client-server model (the clue is in the name Peer-to-Peer).

Goodby freedom. Stop the planet, I want to get off.

Effectively, the music industry has created a situation where either you get ripped off paying over the odds for being a UK customer or they get ripped off because you turn to a cheaper illegal source.

If the music industry wants to solve the problem, rather than bullying its customers, it should try selling what they want - high quality content in a high quality, DRM unencumbered format, at a reasonable price that reflects the reduced material and distribution costs of an online format. They might make less profit per track sold, but it makes the illegal route less attractive, prompting an increase in legitimate sales and higher profit overall.

In the meantime, should your ISP directs you to itunes.co.uk or wherever, just explain that you tried to use the legal, cheaper, US site but it wouldn't accept your money.

on my PC I can sue my ISP because they have allowed an illegal substance to pass onto my computer thought their wires.....................................Also could I sue if I get spammed by somebody's computer on another ISP? Spamming is illegal isn't it?

I want somebody to sue

Could I sue my ISP if I download a movie because they are supposed to be stopping illegal things coming down their lines.

If I get a letter my first call will be to my ISP cancelling my BIG FAT EXPENSIVE Pipe and go for something free and light. The only way out of this is to hit them in the pocket.

Thanks to everyone in Glasgow that didn't vote for The Corporations Champion - Gordon Clown.

Maybe its time we started the pre-election hatchet job on our Corporation Friendly Labour Party.

When the people are afraid of the laws of government its a dictatorship. When the Government is afraid of the people then that is democracy

Word to the wise,

Don't go to Focus for your timber mate.

Could use it as a corkscrew.

Not surprising the Govt prefers a technical solution, its their preferred solution to pretty much everything nowadays.

But wait - how well have Govt IT projects gone recently? NPfIT - foobar. ID Cards - costs spiralling, delivery later and later. MOD projects - costs concealed by 'creative accounting'. Mobile devices - routinely left on trains / in tart's handbags. DVLA records - lost. Tax records - lost.

So the plan is for someone to pay to install packet-sniffing filters to track the traffic of 15,000,000 households and hundreds of millions of commercial sites, track back to see if the source has a license

a few pointlets:

* There's 15M or so UK households with internet. Thats a lot of lines to monitor. Packetsniffing isn't a computationally cheap operation either.

* To check if the uploader has a license they're going to need to be able to check every site in the WORLD. Remember, downloading isn't UK specific...

* Setting aside the impossibility of that, will foreign govts let a UK private company scan their websites? china or korea for instance...

* How will they inspect encrypted packets? legally that is? Never mind personal privacy issues, if I'm Big Company pte from Switzerland I legally cant let Uk.Gov scan my data.

* and lastly - who pays for this enormously complex system?

Oh, and which century do they propose to deliver it in?

Still, I'm up for bidding for the contract. Should be a job for life....

Have these criminals no conscience? Don't they know Africa is starving and Asia is flooding away? Do they not know that their despicable act of music and movie sharing impoverishes the music and movie companies? Do they not know that these companies donate the bulk of their profits to various aid agencies?

Anyway, how are these nasty and evil criminals identified? Or are they just going to send these letters to everyone that has a lot of activity on their account?

Apart from the occasional pron browsing the majority of my broadband activity is used by BBC iPlayer and playing Call of duty 4 online.

Thus, if I get such a letter I'm sure to sue for compensation for hurt feelings, slander, invasion of privacy etc. Hell, I want my mortgage paid off, a holiday plus spending money in Barbados covered, and any other punitive fees my snazzy lawyer can think of.

Erm, sorry; didn't really get further than that...what were you saying?

I really love eating those little fishy things.

No more comment needed.