Feeds

back to article That global freetard crackdown: Three emails ... and carry on

Rome wasn’t built in a day, Hadopi won’t be built in two years: those were the exact words of Marie-Francois Marais, the head of the French anti-piracy programme, speaking in London yesterday. At the Creative Coalition’s conference on growth, the audience were able to compare the approaches taken by four nations to tackle online …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Unfortunately it's designed to really rather annoy technomuggles, and the ignorant.

The only thing you'll be able to tell about a persistent offender, who is downloading lots, is that 'they are downloading lots' via BitTorrent/Newsgroup, which it itself not criminal, unless you can prove what it is they are actually downloading... they might have some sort of demo/linux fetish...

Except all you will find from a hardcore downloader is lots of encrypted traffic, transferring lots of data via a country like Sweden.

8
1
Silver badge
Alert

That's not correct. When you download from BitTorrent, you also upload. This enforced sharing is what makes it so fast, but it also requires publicly announcing what you're downloading. Here's a proof of concept someone made to show how easy it is to tell what people downloaded: youhavedownloaded.com

Of course various anonymity layers can be used, but they also slow things down considerably.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Encrypted VPN to Sweden and they can go nuts... it all traces back to a VPN provider that doesn't store log files... oh, and you're still uploading, but now apparently live in Sweden. It's irrelevant the upload, because your location is now not possible to trace. Check if the a provider actually destroys logs. Sweden is nice as well as the authorities cannot ask for customer details, unless it is a crime that carries jail term of over two years.

Youhavedownloaded is inaccurate anyway as trackers poision their results, with fake entries. It picks up all sorts of massive files for this mobile broadband, and I know for a fact work has never had anything downloaded on it... and it has results.

But I thought smart people were using Newsgroups anyway.

3
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

What concept?

"Here's a proof of concept someone made to show how easy it is to tell what people downloaded: youhavedownloaded.com"

The trouble is that site is pure BS. I haven't used a torrent client in nearly two years and haven't downloaded any movies, yet they have a long list of titles that I've supposedly downloaded recently. They clearly just make it up. Of course, that might be a perfectly workable concept in their eyes.

2
0
Silver badge

youhavedownloaded.com

It returns correct results for me, but there's various reasons it might not work all the time. The most obvious is that it relies solely on IP address, so if you have a dynamic one, the results will be a mishmash of files for all the people who have used that address.

0
0

European leaders are hardly likely to criminalise large proportions of their population at the behest of a foreign scam shop. They'd be on the dole queue pretty damn quick. Better to placate the US cabal by implementing 'educational' measures, until the 'legislate a business model' mob finally dies and something sensible rises from the ashes.

8
1
Anonymous Coward

O'realy?

I'd not bet against it. ;)

2
1
Anonymous Coward

"BSkyB’s David Wheeldon sounded much more co-operative."

That would be the BSkyB of Rupert Murdoch who around the time of SOPA was accusing every ISP and big online companies (read any opposed to SOPA) of making money off the back of hosting or streaming/serving infringing content.

No SHIT he's more co-operative

3
0

I suppose that making content easier to purchase was off the agenda. Just this week I've been stymied three times already from buying content because I wasn't IP-address or credit-card hosted in the US or the UK.

Even across the EU there is still a great disparity in availability and pricing of identical digital content when you're not locked out.

8
0

Some promising stuff there

Once you get path the frothing of the extremists it shows that some people in government are actually thinking about the dynamics of this problem rather than just soundbiting the hell out of the other side.

I like some of the Spanish initiatives - particularly a challenge to the attitude that you can just throw accusations around and hope that some of them stick.

By and large the ISPs are going to have to be involved in any succesful system. Dealing with it only at the individual user level is going to end up with something that either seriously impacts on our shrinking civil liberties or is completely ineffective (and probably both).

Hadopi is obsolete before it has really come into play and although it's not the most oppressive piece of legislation ever passed by a supposedly enlightened liberal state it is poorly focussed and fails to understand the environment it seeks to modify - the comments by Marais about Wifi go to show both her own ignorance of what the problem is and the stupidity of introducing a law aimed at the general public which the she herself admits they cannot comply with because they cannot understand it.

The ISPs should really be looking at this now - I know they don't want to (largely down to cost rather than protecting their customers liberties) but the danger for us all is that if the industry and those who know it don't acknowledge this issue and address it we will continue to suffer from poor laws written by bureacratically inclined civil servants or Media Industry sponsored politicians.

0
1
Silver badge

As a French resident...

...the worst annoyance about HADOPI is that, as far as I know, the levy on blank media has not been repealed.

Let me then ask you - who are the freetards NOW?

9
0
Gold badge

Re: As a French resident...

and as currently Spanish resident, I can tell you that I still have to pay a tax on my camera equipment, memory cards and harddisks despite the new law, and the discovery last year that the money raised (surprise) didn't go to artists, but instead to the crooks who "administered" the system.

3
0

Why make ISP's liable

Surely it should be that copyright infringement is treated the same a speeding in a car and not make ISP's liable as is the same where a person caught speeding is liable and not the makers of the car!

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Why make ISP's liable

I was under the impression that copyright infringement on anything but an industrial scale was a civil offence. In contrast to a criminal offence, where a serious crime is prosecuted and punished by the State, a civil offence is between two parties. The rule of law is available to those who feel their copyright has been infringed, but I'm unclear as to why we are setting aside the law as it stands to allow the State to weigh in on behalf of rich corporations.

Also, if I read this right, other key tenets of our legal system (namely, that we are innocent until proven guilty, and that we should be tried by a jury of our peers before being punished) have also been eroded.

If we really want to get tough on internet users, I think it would be better to focus on the real criminals who use the web to perpertrate fraud and abuse on the vulnerable. I know it's not sexy, and the minister responsible probably won't be wined and dined aboard any luxury yachts, but at least he'll be able to say he acted with integrity, did something good, and didn't totally muck up the British Constitution in the process.

3
0
Pirate

"we say an account holder has broken no law"

I love the fact that my ISP in the US feels the same way. I'm amazed that so many of them here still do. I'm also amazed that there is so much more hassle in the EU for downloaders.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Only a small percentage of society is in denial

The majority of the civilized world understands that copyright laws exist to protect art. It's only a small percentage who are in denial. They need a strong disincentive to educate them on the perils of stupidity. Mandatory jail time and a $10K per copy fine is a good start.

0
16
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Only a small percentage of society is in denial

Obvious troll is obvious.

14
0
Silver badge

Re: Only a small percentage of society is in denial

Come out AC, we know you are really Gene Simmons:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/gene-simmons-vs-anonymous-whos-the-bigger-asshole.ars

1
0

Re: Only a small percentage of society is in denial

Chaim Weitz Gene Simmons has said that he will not relase any new recordings if file-sharing continues.

Please, please please everybody, keep file-sharing!

2
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Really?

“The idea we should dilute intellectual property is utterly barmy,” Whittingdale said

The idea we should permit 'intellectual property' in its current form is what is utterly barmy. What we have now is the beginnings of a global, indefinite tax on future culture. There will be no more Handel, or Bach; no more Shakespeare; no more Mark Twain; no more mix tapes; no more second-hand stores; there will be only the renewing of a "license" to the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers of art and media that should belong to society and be freely enjoyable by all.

That is not to say it should be without cost, after all selling books, putting on shows etc all need funds. But after the reasonable copyright is up (say, 10-20 years), they should be free as in freedom. Free to distribute, parody, re-work, share, build on. Just like the classics are now - and the classics seem to be doing rather well if you ask me, even if the originals are out of copyright.

This simply will not be possible with commercial gatekeepers holding on to their "property" for the shareholders. Future culture will simply be a wasteland of commercial dross where artists and the public suffer under the wheels of the corporate machine.

This is the future being laid out before us, and this is what must be resisted. This is why we need ideas like Copyleft and Creative Commons. This is why we need to encourage alternatives to the RIAA/MPAA/BPI cabals.

PIPA, SOPA, SIPA, Hadopi, DEA, etc are evil laws that do not serve the societal interest. So what if a few companies go to the wall due to the Internet. So what? Survival of the fittest. Evolve or die. Provide the service people want, or go bankrupt. End of discussion.

Instead our toadying "leaders" enact laws to enslave our future culture to some faceless bottom-line. The bottom-line of an industry that is renowned for false-accounting and screwing artists over much more than any copyright infringers may have.

Artists need money to live and eat like the rest of us. The RIAA/MPAA/BPI etc do not represent artists (never have), they represent companies whose sole purpose is to maximise short-term profit at any cost. Nothing else. And if that means screwing over the actual talent, then this is what will (and does) happen.

So if you support artists, art, culture, expression and freedom; your only choice is to oppose these laws and the people who represent them.

21
0
Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: Really?

Permitting technical control on 'culture' in the form of DRM is by far the worst aspect of the whole game.

While I have serious reservations about the fairness of the "private company accuses" nature of the warning letters system, it is still a system that works on the basis of the majority being willing to do the right thing, and the minority freetards left over are probably not worth a serious fight over anyway.

But DRM is so much more toxic, as it hinders innovation ("can't do that boy, not without our license") and serves to render 'content' in current technology obsolete in due course and thus to force a re-licensing of stuff you have already paid for. Also it serves as a barrier to free speech and fair use by those who take copyright to cover far more than distribution of a copy.

Remember the revocation of "1984" by Amazon?

7
0
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: Really?

"What we have now is the beginnings of a global, indefinite tax on future culture. "

And giant shapeshifting lizards run the world, I hear.

0
7
Yag

"What we have now is the beginnings of a global, indefinite tax on future culture. "

Well, I don't see another way to qualify a copyright duration lenghtened by 10 years every 10 years, just to cater to a company who made (and is still making) a fortune thanks to a mouse drawn 3/4 of a century ago...

Survival of the fittest or survival of the fattest, pick your choice.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Really?

"And giant shapeshifting lizards run the world, I hear."

Is that what we are calling lawyers these days? That's a step up for them.

I have little issue with copyright - but extending it ad infinitum (which is what is happening) is madness. The current duration is far too long, never mind what it will become.

0
0
Bronze badge

My view

My view has always been to get an anonymous account and email people a spoken word mp3 explaining that unless they now render their hard drive unusable they are in violation of the law and subject to [insert punishment list here] so to protect themselves from litigation for possession of the sound data of this mp3 they had better replace their hard drive and hit the old one with a hammer for good measure.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: My view

My younger self would have laughed hysterically.

My current self is worried that we might be on the way to that sort of scenario. After all, how often do you receive an email with two screenfuls of disclaimer/terms/licence at the end? That rubbish doesn't hold water.......yet.

1
0
Trollface

Re: My view

Lately I've just been wondering if I should post a copyright take-down notice every time I see someone shared a photo, video or quote on Facebook. Since it's based in the US, I can use a DMCA request.

You might argue of course, that I'd be filing false DMCA requests and liable for perjury and legal repercussions... to which I'd reply "don't make me laugh!"*

*that's the punchline by the way - that people who file false DMCA requests face legal repercussions.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Feudal system

The rich own the goods.

The poor get some of it for free.

The law becomes more harsh.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

3 is 1 too many

There is no reason to give pirates three chances to get their shit together. If they can't do it after one mistake, then they should receive an "incentive" to get their crap together, say a $10K fine per copy and 30 days in jail.

0
6
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: 3 is 1 too many

Hello Andrew!

(btw, obvious troll is obvious)

3
0
FAIL

Perspective

Just finished reading the item about whether Toshiba would buy Elpida's bankrupt corpse. The switch of the market from DRAM to NAND had done them in. And I think of RIM, whose business is going down due to rapid technological change. But we allow the RIAA/MPAA cartel to hold the world hostage to protect their obsolete business model.

I won't cry any tears for them. It's not about protecting artists. Listen to music on radio? I remember hearing a lot of very popular music decades ago that is never played anymore on "classic rock" stations in NA. Why is that? Might it be that those stations subscribe to programming services influenced or controlled by the media giants, who only want you to hear or buy music that's profitable for them to resell? The rest will not be heard. These cartels are distorting our culture purely for their own profit.

They deserve no more protection than an Elpida. Musicians, artists, writers will not disappear merely because one business model ends.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Perspective

DENIAL is the word - look it up.

There is nothing legal about piracy. No one is supporting the RIAA/MPAA's Biz model. The judicial system is enforcing copyright laws which exist to protect art. If you don't understand have someone with a clue explain it to you.

0
0
FAIL

Re: Perspective

"No one is supporting the RIAA/MPAA's Biz model"

No one except bought legislators, the corporations buying them and sycophants like you.

If you think the copyright laws as currently disneyed to excessive durations and the enforcement models being sought for them are primarily supporting artists and not corporate behemoths, have someone with a clue explain reality to you. And you might reread my post and try to understand it. It spoke of the distortion of what music is available to us in favour not of musicians but of the maximum profit of the music cartels. Do you care about those artists whose works have been buried and despite past popularity are now being forgotten? The RIAA doesn't, and apparently neither do you. Music encompasses more than recordings, more than radio, more than downloads. It's best experienced live, and those forms are all means of informing and creating an audience for it, whether live or recorded. The music cartels have been no friends of musicians, with very few exceptions.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.