People accused of unlawful filesharing by the music and film industries will have access to a free appeals system, the coalition government said today. Tory broadband minister Ed Vaizey said there will be no cost for the public to appeal against Digital Economy Act (DEA) copyright infringement notices, at least initially. …
I haven't been following this much, but this DEA sounds like a way for companies with lots of money to bypass the bothersome task of actually having to take people to court to show how they have had their rights infringed upon.
I got done recently when my wireless got hacked.
Net result was, "Well, the film people say that your IP copied this and we saw X amount of traffic on your line, therefore you're guilty." - that's the kind of evidence that would get laughed out of any self respecting court.
In fact, the ISP shouldn't have issued the noticfe as it isn't yet in effect and also the notice they did give was out of what with several of the requirements, rendering the notice illegal in itself.
Full account here - http://technilife.blogspot.com/2010/06/broadband-barmy.html
Your wireless "got hacked". Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Sorry. This is an IT site anybody on here should know that a properly set up wireless network is very, very difficult indeed to hack. Having a wireless network that is easy to hack is similar to leaving your unlocked with the keys in the ignition and expecting your insurance to pay out when somebody drives the car away.
Re: Ha ha!
It is similar to leaving the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and expecting not to get hit with the thief's speeding tickets.
How many people would have thought that WPA2 TKIP could fall in three minutes if the hacker has a pre-prepared database. Now I'm up to AES with a tougher password.
I feel for the people who...
a) have devices that don't play nice at WPA2-AES that forces them to either lower the encryption standard. (I think the PS2 is one of these as is some Belkin routers)
b) have devices pre-configured by their ISP and they CAN'T change the settings ... these people are going to be held liable for equipment that they have no control over.
Anything short of WPA2-AES is insecure by today's standards
and yet, some devices won't play well with the AES mode. Hell, some don't even support WPA2; I had to forego one of my older wirless cards because it couldn't do anything other than WEP.
Even with the WPA2-AES setting, I have separated the wireless network on a different subnet, and it will probably be firewalled in the near future. Anything actually secure (say, RADIUS or other stuff) won't really play well with embedded devices. Unfortunately, most of the wireless thingies we put on the WiFi network are usually embedded devices...
Get off your High Horse s*it happens, even to the best of us. If he got hacked twice then I would find reason to laugh.
And the great interception of communication begins. Thus begins the end of democracy and freedom of speech.
Most BitTorrent traffic is already encrypted and now some trackers are starting to operate over VPNs, but no amount of encryption is going to make peer-to-peer networks secure. The problem is that each peer needs to know who all the other peers are. So, all the media companies have to do is torrent their own stuff and they get a nice list of IP addresses that they can pursue with the ISPs.
"all the media companies have to do is torrent their own stuff"
They can't do that. If the rights holder makes their content available for download, I would then have their permission to download it, so I wouldn't be infringing their copyright.
Hmm i doubt it...
I would expect that a media company operating a torrent of their own stuff in order to trap people would be tantamount to entrapment and so would be illegal. Additionally, it would put at risk the very thing (copyright) that they're trying to protect, as the very first thing a judge would say was "You made it available for free to anyone on an unlimited basis? Thats your loss then."
Crypto alone is not enough
Crypto prevents deep packet inspection by ISPs which is a Good Thing. However it doesn't prevent the fake P2P clients recording every incoming IP address and using that info to compile reports that eventually get sent to the ISP.
In order to have plausible deniability, it would be necessary for P2P clients to act as proxies to other clients with receiver and sender separated by 1 or more hops. The more hops and the more random the path between receiver & sender the better. Preferably the hops would cross several national jurisdictions as well. An IP sniffer would not be able to say with 100% confidence that a node is the recipient of the data (which is encrypted) or merely passing it on somewhere else.
If this were part of the protocol rather than an optional feature, then the entire population base would benefit from it. It's more or less how Tor and Freenet work. The problem is doing it right. Tor and Freenet are painfully slow because of the number of hops and I expect that any P2P implementation would suffer the same issue.
I'll support that the right holder should pay the full price...
... after all, they stand to benefit greatly from the success of this procedure (assuming that their assumption about piracy is true).
ISPs on the other hand, stand to lose customers, so I understand their desire not to bear any cost. But let us not forget, ISPs complained that fileshares consume the lion share of their bandwidth. To see fileshares leave their network (for legal reasons) should benefit them by greatly cutting down on their bandwidth cost (assuming they are telling the truth).
They aint going to catch the prolific shearers and downloaders anyway. They will find a way to avoid detection. They only way to counter it, is to bring in laws and powers that take away all our privacy.
Wow, loving the thought of living like a slave with no private life because the music and film industries don't have a clue! You're all pricks, you deserve to go under, seriously fuck you all, you will die, when we start our own media companies that don't treat customers like shit you won't be able to compete. You'll have to get with the times or face extension.
Or maybe you will just get the laws changed so will all have to be your bitches. Yeah looks like you are doing that. How long will it be until independent film and record companies are made illegal.
Remember folks, the music business sue single mums thousands for sharing a few crap tunes. These people are scum, ripping of artists, consumers and now even conning the bloody government once more to get their own way and rip us all off. Fucking scum!
I snickered at shearers
but lold at "or face extension".
Maybe some of the real scum who send out letter to unsuspecting citizens will be curbed but ----
but as this is about 'fee legal aid' all it does is pour more money in to the coffers of the bastard thieves who will prey on anyone under the guise of legality.
More money for the Tories chums.
"or face extension"
"or face extension"
haha got me!
I was uncharacteristically grouchy today, more a case of Firefox's spell checker failing, spell checkers are an area where Microsoft actually beets Mozillia!
" introduce "small fees" later, because it "risks the possibility of large numbers of unnecessary appeals". "
Yeah and the public, you know the public that this government represents, risks facing a large number of unnecessary ACCUSATIONS!
Appeals against this should NOT be subject to a FEE.
"... will benefit OUR creative economy by some £200m per year ..." Huh?
When they claim: "We expect the measures will benefit OUR creative economy by some £200m per year ..." are they actually doing it to help British artists and companies OR continue to collect damages for America business?
Let other countries do their own thing and not use British procedures to shaft the British public.
Of course, the new ACTA Trade Agreement, designed to help Hollywood, remains under wraps although some information can be seen here: < http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4829/125/ >. This Trade Agreement will no doubt come into play along with this new tribunal.
It is essential to ensure that 'evidence' be of the highest calibre and not some mouthpiece 'expert' financed by the U.S. record industry trotting out the party line.
I would naively assume that it will only be open for UK rights holders then, and that any other nation's rights holders can be told, politely, to jog on.
I'm keen to emphasise the word "naively" though.
not if ACTA gets its way..
@JaitcH, 14th September 2010 10:54 GMT
the final ACTA is not out yet, but I would like to highlight the following from the link you provided:
"the EU is seeking injunctive relief powers against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an IP right."
the basically means that VPNs are *not* an option as many people think it would be. VPN providers will be held liable for any damage done using their network
Which is why
the VPNs will be hosted outside the EU.
Does this 'relief power' also mean that the Royal Mail will be liable for posting illegal/counterfeit CDs. That should be an interesting court case.
I had such high hopes for this coalition especially when they started websites like yourfreedom, but then you realise that was just a press release with a website they were never going to listen to and all the evilness of labour isn't going to be scrapped, nevermind going further into a brighter future.
Rights holders stump up a loseable deposit
Make the rights holders pay a deposit that they get back if they win.
After all if they are so sure, they'll get it back. Simples.
Question 1 on the claim form to waive the fee
Are you guilty or not guilty?
Answer yes or no.
The first question will be "Have you stopped illegally sharing files?
One DEA was bad enough, now the world has another.
Here we go again
It's much the same as that old trick of charging extra for every tape because a few of them would be used to copy records.
It's not the ISPs that will pay, it's their customers who will all have to pay increased charges.
So the private music and film industries get to impose a private tax on everyone's communications, to help out their profits.
Place your bets - how long after this is implemented will it be before the first call (from the biggest, richest companies, not from the independents) for the amount we all pay to be increased? Probably as part of the same package as the next extension of the time that copyright lasts for.
Let me get this straight...
So the gov pay, using collected taxes I presume, lawyers / others to protect folks that they have, potentially artificially, labelled as criminals. In essence, they have created a rule that means they can pump more public taxes back to private companies...yeah...another win for the boys club :)
Save £200m a year?
And how much is this costing the UK economy?
Doomed to fail
And all this is doomed to fail.
I await my letters through the post so i can counter sue
I've already got my jacket on =]
re: Save £200m a year?
So if the filesharers have to pay £200m a year for content they now get for free, what are they going to have to give up? Live music? Cinema?
It would be interesting to see..
..how mr mandelson reacted if, say, somebody went to his neighbourhood, hacked into his wireless (Assuming he has it) and downloaded loads of music - that resulted in him receiving the letter saying he had broken his own f*cking stupid law.
Killing the golden goose
As countless other studies have shown, filesharing youngsters actually spend more on music than other age groups.
If they want to fine people like us for downloading an album before we buy then they'll be punished by us when we refuse to buy from them again
At the end of the day you don't poke the bear, these music industry people sending out the letters are going to kill the golden goose and make criminals of their biggest customers
If you commit the crime then you should pay the fine
Pretty simple really. Back to work, children.
The real joke is that they are going to bring in these restrictions and laws and people will probably stop file sharing. T
hen with other sweeping cuts there will be less Police on the streets and everyone can welcome back the organised Chinese gangs who sell DVDs for a fiva (they might even sell blue rays!) these gangs also use people trafficing as a a form of recruitment.
Illegal file sharing is the lesser of two evils and the so called 200m opportunity lost cost they are talking about is pure economical magic, most people who download films and music are very unlikely to buy the thing, and the small majority that would usually go and see the film or buy the album. When you can sample the product properly you tend to notice its trash and then you don't buy it, why should I buy something if its a mystery?
To all the music artist perform you music live first if I like I'll buy it. I'm not taking a chance on crap, to the film compaines stop making sequels and trying to peddle double price 3D tickets it just me a bloody headache and it doesnt patch over weak storylines (boobs can do this a lot better and its cheaper!)