First, the usual - piracy is bad and I dont agree with it.

But, its funny that the corporate powers are pushing for stricter consequences, when, given how they are fond of illegal actions, we should be the ones pushing for harsher consequences for corporate crime. These guys lie, cheat and extort, and get measy million dollar fines - they need prison sentences and billion dollar fines before they realize it goes both ways.

About time, now maybe they'll move off winny and onto perfect dark.

Any bets on what the new protocol being used in Japan will be?

"Daily Yomiuri Online reports that rights holders will alert ISPs when they detect their customers' IP addresses participating in copyright-infringing WinNY networks."

I can see the board meetings now - next step will be rights holders making a list of every IP address connected with anything they remotely disagree with, and firing off three letters in short succession to the connected ISPs.

Nothing like having people with a vested interest, no oversight, a history of incorrectness, and dubious morals in complete and total control of who has internet connections in an entire country!

Blit tollents?

By the way, can't Lord Triesman sue the Japanese for stealing his intelectual property?

Mines the one with the Sushi.

What a super idea; lets stop illegal piracy by using surveillance and wiretapping. Nevermind the fact that it's a crime to monitor someone's internet connection or attempt to connect to their computer uninvited, the important thing is that through vicious corporate sponsored cyber-vigilantism we can work together to maintain artificially high media pricing and industry wide oligopolies.

Why don't we just cut out the middle-man and ask China to run our ISPs, that way we can forget about disconnecting users and just go straight to savage baton-beatings.

The RIAA/MPAA (and international crime partners) have NO LEGAL RIGHTS to have someone's internet connection cut without a COURT ORDER and a proof (a screen capture or a log file IS NO PROOF as it can be easly manipulated and with it's long crminal record the MPAARIAA cannot be thrusted).

nows let's hope that the first fews peoples who will have been illegally cut from the net will sue the ISP for doing the bidding of the Digital Mafia (MPAA./RIAA).

Imagine a world where all you have to do is choosing someone at random and acuse that personne of a crime(whitout any proof) to sent him to jail? This is excacly what the most dangerous crminal gangs in the world today (MPAA/RIAA) wants.

Perhaps so, but the network technology itself is not illegal - the content is.

I can use BitTorrent to download game demos and free software, just as others can use it for piracy. And World of Warcraft uses torrents for patches.

I'm aware that although torrents can be legally used, in reality that probably only happens 1% of the time. The point is, you cant assume that everyone who uses torrents is a pirate - unless the RIAA/MPAA have found some way of convicting people as pirates just because they have the means to do so. They would need to intercept your packets to discover what content you are after or trying to share - which might qualify as illegal interception.

Oh no - I have a DVD writer at home, I better turn myself in before the record industry discovers that I can use it for piracy.

I can't wait until some bright spark spoofs the ip addresses of the rights holders and the isp's boards of directors.

So 3 strikes down, you've lost your connection, what then? Do you have to pay for the whole contract? Can you sign up with another ISP?

Depending on the answer to those questions, there may be the issue of you getting thrown off your connection, paying for the privilege, and then no-longer able to go online, potentially from a mistake that the RIAA don't have to justify???

That's alarming IMO

You can do that? I thought this inter-tube thingy was really secure and you could always tell who did what and with whom. My aunt's hairdresser's 2nd cousin twice removed (but he came back) says that it's all really secure and stuff.

Folks - this article is about them doing this in Japan. Not the USA. So would those crying out about court orders and American laws and shit like that kindly note that no, US law does not apply in Japan or anywhere else. Much as Americans would like their laws to apply everywhere, except when it's convenient for them not to be.

Japan is not completely a "rule of law" country. It's more of a "rule of convenience for those in power" type of country. It's amazing what corporations, the police, and their governments get away with on the "rights" front. Mainly, it seems, due to a under-informed population and a well trained (from pre-school on up) habit of conforming and obeying authority.

"If your IP address is part of an infringing BitTorrent swarm, it is easy to detect publicly. What's changing is that if the ISPs are cooperating, the rights holder need only report your IP address to them and they will send the warning. There's a bullet point explanation here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/28/filesharing_downing_st_petition/"

Surely the system on which the swarm is hosted need only to insert a few random yet sensible IP addresses into the swarm for this method to be invalidated?

"it's just that until recently there was no prospect of it being enforced."

Because when you run a business that barely makes any money (so little money you have to sell off customer data to spyware firms) disconnecting paying customers without proof or appeal is always a winner for your business... Especially after some wrongly disconnected customers get angry and sue you for disconnecting them.

Even if its successful, this will spell bad news for the ISP's. Without file sharing why would I want that high bandwidth line again?

Perfect Dark - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Dark_%28P2P%29

Yeah yeah wiki - but English language info on perfect dark is sketchy even though the guy that makes it recently released an English language version.

Almost no one in Japan uses WiNny anymore - they mostly use Share.

If a company (MPAA, RIAA, or others) control the knowledge (internet) they will control the world.

What was once thought of as science fiction is slowly becoming science fact.

Long live Guy Fawkes.

Participating in a public network does not constitute an invitation to connect to my computer or inspect/intercept traffic originating or destined for it.

To put it in context: I don't have to lock my front door for you to be guilty of tresspassing if I catch you snooping around inside my home.

In regards to a bittorrent tracker all one needs to do is connect to the torrent tracker of interest and list every IP Address as they're all sharing that file (open your torrent tool and select "hosts" and you will see everyone else in your swarm no need to do anything bad). Then go to the ISP's and say "hai gais we got dis list of sharers, please be whoopin them now."

It's a bit like back in the good old days getting the membership lists for Shin Fein(re Irish Republicans), or Union members (re socialists). Going down to the social or such like.

Now with something like perfect dark...

> The threatened alternative - legislation - is worse, however.

Ultimately, of course, relationships between customers and ISPs are contracts, so in that sense courts will be involved. Just as courts have been involved when the RIAA have messed up and accused the odd granny of sharing Zombie Mother-Fooquars from Hell songs.

At which point evidence, of a suitable standard will be required. The heresay / flimsy stuff you get from talking about IP addresses and bittorrent swarms might not be suitable evidence. Just about every piece of data I download is copyrighted [your stories for example]....the key things about (C) law aren't whether something is copyrighted. It's all about permission / licenses and what data it was and whether you copied it, distributed it and so on and so on. Simply pointing at a file name and an IP address in a log isn't evidence of much at all.

Indeed, if it were evidence then you have to ask why the (c) holders are trying to get ISPs to threaten to disconnect people, rather than their legal departments to extract cash / convictions from people?

This idea is because they know they don't have evidence. The ISPs should tell them to piss off. It's all a game based on threats. The Government threatens ISP saying "we'll legislate if you don't threaten the users" hoping, [based on a survey that you wrote a story about], that the threat of being disconnected by an ISP will be enough make people stop sharing.

But, I think this is the rub - If anyone on the path calls the bluff, I imagine it'll all disappear for the fluff it is. "Oh customer has said "piss off" - what's our legal position if we actually disconnect? Can we actually prove he broke any terms? Can we prove he breached copyright? What about the PR?

If people start taking their ISP to court after being disconnected, then evidence and courts enter the picture. [And we know, even if most were caught red-handed, it stands to reason that, just as the RIAA messed up. ISPs have ****ed up everything they've ever touched from time to time too, so they will get it badly wrong too, and either accuse or disconnect some completely innocent user - once that user wins in legal and PR terms, the whole threat system could fail.

SImilary for the legislation threat, that's the ISP best route. Because the HoL tends to be sane about these things and so whatever the Commons threatened will just get chucked back over the wall if it's as daft and unworkable as this whole thing sounds.

In the meantime we'll probably plenty of PR like this article hinting that Japan have accepted it. Whatever "it" is - although I'm suspicious, I don't speak the language and the truth of what exactly Japan have done, what they will do / what they are checking / what they are saying probably doesn't correlate as much with the dreamy ideas of various (c) holders as they are hoping we will think it does. Hence the comments here and the article talking as though "They are doing it, they are behind the UK" - which is laughable because we have no such system in place at all, so if Japan are doing it, we will be behind them if it ever happens..."

That said, we probably should take into account the ISPs willingness to kick off / stymie heavy users to make a point, for whatever reason they can find using the PR that it makes the service better for us. If this is a reason they can say "we had no choice" perhaps they'll go for it...but I doubt you'll either see much difference in the amount of file sharing, nor any mass evictions from ISPs.

"They're not connecting to your computer, or "looking inside" it. They are connecting to a BitTorrent swarm that you are participating in."

Can we have some consistency here, please?

When someone attaches to an unsecured wifi, this is considered illegal access. Even though

a) not illegal

b) not access

at least according to your view of it:

a) has to be access to be illegal

b) they aren't looking at your computer, they're just connecting to a network you're participating in

For copipresse and similar "news" aggregators, Google's caching of "their" content is illegal because they want to be asked SPECIFICALLY if Google can access it.

Yes, the law is fooked up. But talking out of both sides of their mouth isn't helping win any converts to the idea "aw, the poor little mites are being attacked".

That makes absolutely no sense though; You're saying that my being part of a tracker list constitutes evidence of copyright infringement. If Japanese ISPs, the RIAA or any other group decides to connect to that same tracker (ostensibly to look for infringers), would not they then too, be guilty by that same logic?

If anyone can just log into a torrent tracker and call the local Police to report a dozen or so local 'infringers' while themselves maintaining total impunity, how can you even be sure those same people you're turning in aren't themselves doing the same thing?

The legal usage of torrents usually amounts to a company (like Blizzard) attempting to increase their profits by dumping their server demand onto (paying) customers.

Obviously if torrents were a problem for customers they would simply switch to something else so for WoW players it's really not a worry. The only real benefactor is Blizzard's bottom line.

So the legal-use defence basically amounts to saying that Torrents are good or should be protected because it makes a given corporation (like Blizzard) more profitable.

Since the amount of profits gained by legal P2P doesn't hold a candle to profits lost, going with that defence is, to put it lightly, choosing the wrong battle.

Here's a clue: If ya'll are gonna rant about evil corporations, don't push for P2P by saying "it makes corporations more profitable" as it's primary merit.

Sadly for every action there is a reaction !

This not so bright decision will now effectively accelerate the development of an end to end fully encrypted data stream variation of file sharing masking sending and receiving IP addresses and also create an alternate Dark Net user groups very difficult to penetrate !

Stupid is , stupid does

I download TV shows, movies, etc to see if they are any good. If I enjoy it, I (or someone in my family) buy it. If not, it gets deleted.

Same with the odd game I download (usually when the demo is either hopelessly broken or crippled, or doesn't exist).

So, who's losing there? Well, I'm sure the studio or distributor that first shows any sign of making threats. I know I'd stop buying anything from a company that threatened to sue or disconnect me.

you go to a shady place and say

"hello I am x and I am looking for y" where y is illagle

some pepol in the room say "hello x here is some y"

you stay there

later a new person walks into the room says "hello I am z and I am looking for some y" you chime in with over pepol saying "hello z here is some y"

then a perosn in the corner who has not said anything takes down your names and pictures and sends them to the police who arrest you later

"" Japan is not completely a "rule of law" country. It's more of a "rule of convenience for those in power" type of country. It's amazing what corporations, the police, and their governments get away with on the "rights" front""

i thought thats how all Western "Democracies" worked.

one rule for the rich and powerful, another for the citizen?

as for detectign right from wrong, surely all an ISP has to do is target the top 5-10% of traffic users on their network, i suspect that this will have a stong correlation to heaver torrents/file sharing abusers?

admittedly there are those "torrent snipers" (or is that leachers)who will just come on grab one or two files, films or apps and then dissapear into the darkness!? but without rising up the bandwidth league table?

a freind of mine recalls the pre web days of peer2peer.

youd meet Nigel (like in the ads- how he laughed) down the pub he would have a cd with all the latest apps and gamez, prehacked and ready to run! not only de this firend no have to wait days or weks for it to down load, it would be the right version, complete with extras and work!

and yes, heaven forbid..... someway down the line after "evaluating" the software he would often buy said "Official" products to encorage fuirther prodcution and investment

Surely everyone could just use onion routing like TOR, bam suddenly my IP says I'm living in Germany or wherever else i want. I give this ruling about 2 weeks if it comes into effect at all.

> You're saying that my being part of a tracker list constitutes evidence of copyright infringement.

Well, don't shoot the messenger here, but if you're talking about BitTorrent [and probably other P2P too] then the files, or at least pieces of them are distributed by each person.

So they could potentially get your details [as already described] together with evidence that, as part of that swarm, you distributed part of a copyrighted file to them. In other words, you sent them a few piece(s) and they examine them and say "That was Lily Allen. Stop file sharing or get disconnected. Three strikes and you're out blah blah blah,"

At which point it might get complicated and I am not a lawyer.

But, questions like how difficult is it for them to get a piece of data from a particular client. What format would they need to make their "proof" submittable as evidence [if that eventually was required]

Whether the fact that p2p's mechanism to distribute by sharing bandwidth when downloading and / or by seeding is actually the same [legally] as the initial uploader's intentional distribution of the file?

Bottom line : For a threatening letter none of these questions will matter. Some hairy arsed tech will set up a logging system and some legal dept. dude will draft 2 template warning letters and a final "close the door on your way out..." one. 99.99% of the time the letter is right, you were sharing, you've had your fun anyway....years of free stuff, now it's stopped. You have to wait for clever people to create a new workaround..but in the meantime it'd just be daft to get disconnected if you are sharing (c) files in a way that they've warned you in a letter about.

The next obvious question : What are you going to do about it if you are innocent?

Well, anyone who has, for example, ever had to deal with Virgin media for, say, an account that has been cancelled but they kept charging for it, and then started a debt recovery process. Or, for that matter, anyone who has had to phone VM customer services at all about anything...will probably know the answer. You aren't going to do much about it by talking to them - not without a long, drawn out, frustrating process.

Getting your ISP to recognise that their "evidence" that you haven't paid them, or that you have shared files is wrong, will just be a complete waste of time.

Their incompetence and the general "call centre "Computer says no" staff will ensure you have 2 choices if you are sharing (a) Stop sharing files or (b) Carry on and wait for a disconnect and then fight them in a court. For an innocent user, they just have to hope whatever glitch accused them doesn't strike 3 times....if it does at least in court they've a better chance of winning...it'll still be a nightmare...of course, if they are 90 and live in a care home or something, they'll probably have the media championing their cause too.

Of course, it depends what getting disconnected means...if you can simply get another ISP then for ADSL customers, they've probably got plenty to go through.

Perhaps they won't release the line? [You know, that thing they don't want to release at the best of times to stop you switching provider, I can't remember what it's called I've got cable anyway] If they do that, then you probably can't get another ISP easily, but they haven't actually had to tell another ISP that you're a sharer [so libel claims won't be easy]

if you've really had enough of this, the means to put a stop to it are at hand!

simple so without music and videos for a few months - just stop buying music & video cd/dvd for six months, i mean really stop buying them. i'm sure that once they loose all their revenue they'll find a better way to market the stuff and get off the backs of filesharers.

the same technique will probably work with airport security hassles - no chance for the people to make the government stop some of the insane security nonsense at airports but if everyone made a concentrated effort to avoid flying the airlines would pressure the feds to back off - three months of greatly reduced revenue should do it!