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...

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.

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.

...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...."

The Government is happiest with the filtering option? Never!

Of course there is no way the ISPs will simply use this as an opportunity to throttle down bandwidth ever lower under the guise of 'agreed filtering to save you from commiting copyright theft'? As has been mooted before, the more the ISPs get involved in moderating what goes through their pipes, the harder it will be for them to refuse responsibility when pr0n etc gets through.

I recall they were trying in the past to state they were not responsible for what passed over their wires.

This agreement looks to me like it might just be the thin end of the wedge. I foresee a court case in the not too distant future with an ISP accused of letting Illegal music/porn/terrorist material/unapproved political views pass through their network.

Duffers.

O

So presumably they'll also have the post office open every package sent to see it it contains a copy of a CD.

Good to know they're looking after us.

While it's a nice, familiar and evocative term (just like "terrorism" is), I don't feel particularly engaged with the idea that copying a file is "stealing" it.

The way I've always understood stealing (since about the age of 4, or whenever it was explained to me) is along the lines of:

You have something. I take it, you don't have it anymore. That's stealing.

When we get to the much more fuzzy: you have something, I copy it, you still have it - then that doesn't have the same impact. Even more so when that something is intangible: not the sweets or comics exemplified in childhood lessons.

Now I realise that the most heinous thefts these days are with intangibles, such as money from online sources, that still qualifies by virtue of "you don't have it anymore". However I would find it hard to explain to a file-sharing child (or grownup, for that matter) that part of the value of an abstract "good" is it's scarcity and it's taking that without paying - not the entertainment value you get from making your own copy, which is what makes it wrong.

We were discussing this down the local last night... The local with an "open to customers" policy on their wireless network...

... So what exactly would happen should a drunken customer decide (for reasons best kept to themselves) to download the latest McFly album while the BPI are monitoring?

Can the landlord be held responsible?

Do pub owners / bar staff now have to check not just for underage drinkers, illicit drug use, indoor smoking, drunken behaviour and potential kick-offerey but now also potential copyright infringement?

Could this cause the end of free open Wi-Fi?

And why would anybody want McFly's album in the first place?

These are questions that need to be answered!

Nothing beats a bit of remit expansion, as they love to say down at Riverside House. Never content with whatever it is they are supposed to do, Ofcom just love to roll up their sleeves and toss their hat into the ring for any other NuLab nastiness that needs enforcing (sorry, light-touch regulating). And this little number should suit them down to the ground! It's 'evidence-based'! And what better 'evidence' could you be presented with than the say-so of a bunch of lazy capitalist wankers trying to shore up an out of date business model that relies on a captive market that wants to break free from it's chains?

I'm sure that with a bit of innovative, joined-up/blue sky/out of the box thinking they can cut down on the two year lead time it takes to implement any regulation likely to help consumers and have the first deviant crying over his flashing sync light by close of play next Friday.

What next for Ed and the heroes of the NuLab revolution? Light-touch drug testing for the 2012 Olympics? Evidence-based (no need for voting) general election results?

Mines the one with the happy pills in the pocket.

""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

Oh yeah?? How???

*rubs eyes* Ok so we've all known that this was coming for a few months now, nice to have an article that (relatively) concisely presents the facts for us.

*rubs eyes again* Yep, I thought so. Is there any mention of where we can find out who the ISPs that have voluntarily signed up are? I didn't see a list of ISPs in the article.

Thanks!

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.

If there was a convenient way for people to get hold of older content, and also if lower prices were charged.

Ok, I may be guilty of downloading a thing or two, but its usually stff I can't find due to being old. Have downloaded the odd new release too, but only once have I watched a new dl film that I thought would have been worth the rental price.

If ther were a online service where I could rent an old film for around £1, or a new release for around £2, which would allow me to stream to my 360, I would be over the moon.

Put these measures in place and I may stop downloading, but I am not likely to start renting more. I will simply take up reading more again.

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!)

We should generalize this principle. If anyone in the UK is accused of some offence, there should be a bunch of companies that agree to deny them service. Like, for instance, you are accused of having speeded or parked in defiance of regulations. In that case you'd be barred from visiting the Lake District, or buying books from Waterstones, or reading the Guardian. Or maybe the Sun.

Lets say you've been accused of public drunkenness, or inappropriate smoking. Well, then we might refuse to accept your season ticket. Or perhaps your local Tesco will stop accepting your credit card. Or maybe you will no longer be allowed to buy compression fittings for plumbing. Or shop at Focus or Wickes for timber.

This is such a great step forward for Britain. We can do away with the whole messy business of evidence, proof, penalties. Just a bunch of people and companies getting together and imposing sanctions on anyone who is accused of anything, as they see fit.

How much nicer life is going to be when this is broadly accepted as the way we live here now.

If a system were to be set up whereby files are filtered prior to a download starting, and blocked accordingly, it would be a truly peaceful resolution to sharing of copyrighted materials. Sure it stops you from getting your knockoff files, but it also removes the risk of getting a pounding from the BPI's Kosh of Justice. However, I would give it ten, maybe fifteen minutes before some bright spark figures out a workaround. It's then back to square one, with the ISPs playing Baldrick to the BPI's Blackadder, and the government dithering around with it's hands in the air like Prince Regent in the background.

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?

permenant encryption it is then.

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

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.

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.

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

>> In the meantime those letters will be cranking out. The targets will be identified by

>> "music rights holders" who will pass the data on to the ISPs, who will then run the

>> system as a trial for three months. So that's about 70,000 letters in total

I don't know if this will do much the Music Industry, but it will surely boost Royal Mail's profits.

Also, :

>> "There are technologies available which can filter Internet traffic.

True.

>> These can identify particular types of file (eg music files),

True.

>> 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.

False. If only that were true. We could then do away with copyright lawyers and courts.

>> 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."

Did you just lift this off the BBC or something? I can't imagine any reg. reader falling for this pile of bulls hit.

I suppose these technologies were developed in the same labs as the infallible national identity database?

"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.

Western Governments = Fascist Police States (in the truest sense of the word - look up what fascist means if you don't understand).

Lets face it nowdays companies/authorities can intercept our mail, phone calls and internet communications with relative ease (with the ease increasing from left to right.)

Anyway - bit torrent is too insecure (lets face it you join a tracker and anyone else connected to the tracker can see your IP) - use perfect dark or a similar technology but perfect dark is the best I know of - although not enough users at the moment.

Also - filtering is horsepoop. Steaming horse poop.

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.

"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."

1. linix distros

2. MMORPG updates (blizard use p2p for wow patches)

3. BBC iplayer

4. recovery of damaged disks (I downloaded a copy fo windows xp home oem for somone who's orignal had been damaged in tramnst)

enought for you?

and that ignors the fact how do you tell p2p trafic apart form non p2p trafic over random ports?

""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.""

if they are like the ones all ready fired off they will include details eg "on friday the 21st aug at 18.03 you where downloading new boyband crap.mp3 this is a copy of a work and is proctedt by our copy right" if I get one with out any details on it I will reply with a letter that says somthing like "yer prove it"

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.

Surely the worst that can happen is that you're with one of the big names, you get kicked off with a month's notice and a migration code and you move to one of the nicer, smaller ISPs who won't dispense with their customers and risk going under?

When I checked last night there were 4 other wireless networks with a signal strong enough to use in my area. All of them were using WEP.

If I were to start downloading copyright material, Guess who would be receiving the letters.

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.

"if they are like the ones all ready fired off they will include details eg "on friday the 21st aug at 18.03 you where downloading new boyband crap.mp3 this is a copy of a work and is proctedt by our copy right" if I get one with out any details on it I will reply with a letter that says somthing like "yer prove it"

And if I get anything like that I'm going to be writing something starkly worded wondering what legal backing they have to be even looking at the stream of my data? Especially since I haven't touched anything like that since the heady days of Kazaa (which was very handy for watching Buffy & Angel before they were broadcast).

If I get such a letter -- which would be based on downloading certain free software and music the musician is offering as a sample, but how can the ISP know? -- then I will have my solicitor answer it, accusing the sender of anything and everything she can think of. I find that most bullies go away at once, to go kick someone who is cringing rather than spitting int heir eye. To me, the money is well spent. When I get screwed over by a company (eg no service when I've paid, won't take back damaged goods, etc), I call or write three times, and the third time I say that the fourth communication will be from my solicitor. Most of the time I don't have to take that fourth step, as reasonableness suddenly ensues, but whenever I /have/ taken that fourth step, the matter is resolved at once. The saving of my time and frustration is well worth it. And to see those scum-suckers grovel -- nice.

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....

Anonymous Coward, there are lots of legitmate uses for Peer-to-peer, just go and download a linux distribution for example, most major distributions prefer you to download via torrent, to save them money... I've downloaded more legal content via peer-to-peer in the last two years than illegal!

Once again the music industry shoot themselves in both feet.. they've missed the boat on peer-to-peer and are now trying to make someone else pay to build a speed boat to catch up!

Maybe if they pulled their fingers out as an industry and produced a peer-to-peer based universal download system that would allow me to download what I wanted in a format of my choice with a preview option then I would:

a) Stop buying CDs

b) Stop ever downloading illegally an album before buying it.

c) Buy my music online to use across a range of my personal devices.

Or they can continue on current basis and:

a) I stop downloading albums illegally to see if I like them before I buy them.

b) I stop buying any albums after getting stung buying 2 or 3 rubish ones in a row!

c) They loose even more sales!

well, that will be the argument before long, won't it? *illegal* file sharing must mean that the *criminal* has something to hide and that must be related to terrorism or paedophilia because that way the *Government* (aka Rupert Murdoch) gets to whip up a huge scare about illegal interweb activities undermining teh very fabric of society please God won't soemone think of the children.

I thank you for the ad hominem attack, but I am afraid you have not listed anything which cannot be achieved by the good-old (basic) download-form-a-server method.

So there really is no legal use for P2P. Thanks for confirming what I suspected.

Option A4 makes my head spin.

“…way of tackling not only P2P piracy but also other forms of copyright infringement.”

Presumably that would include websites. Would any government want to give private businesses that much power? I read about individuals getting SLAPPed down in America. While a government may not, in general, mind rights holders using their Internet filter to blot out descenting opinions, what happens if rights holders move against the policies of the current government or opposition party?

Also, as others have pointed out, “no such permission is found” is not the same as “in breach of copyright.”

....detect what content i'm downloading by examining packets...

(whether it's legal or not)

...how?

t'is encrypted

...idiots.

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.

If the bpi have a case against people let them prove it in court if not shut up !!!

The figures they put out are a mixture of lies and wishful thinking....not one of the big 5 companies have made a loss on cd sales and the good artists have always made more from touring anyhow.This of course means they have to be talented which many of the people around at the minute aren't and they only cover previous material.

As for the record companies it is easy for them to blame filesharing but if the figures for the number of on line sales is correct it would appear to me that this is where their problem is if they buy online they dont buy the cd as well.

i am not condoning filesharing in anyway by these statements but i want the law to be used so people can be appropriately dealt with,imo the BPI dont want to do this because there methods will be seen for what they are a sham.

The bpi have to get their own act together and pay for a legitimate system of data collection instead of the wishy washy way it is done at present and make sure they do it properly as it stands they are unaccountable and this should not be the case with someone pertaining to be a law enforcement agency ,their methods should be accredited and audited like any other law enforcement agency.

Wow, I can't believe ther'ye still pimping the filtering bullshit...

Hmm... let me see... uTorrent->Preferences->BitTorrent->Protocol encyption. Outgoing : Enabled. Allow incoming legacy connections: Deselected.

Bye bye filtering.

Also, lots of the comments here are concerned about the ISPs snooping on traffic with DPI. That's not how this shit is going to go down. The MAFIAA plan to sit on swarms they don't like the look of and collect IP addresses. If they resolve to any of these six stooges, the ISP will be pimped into sending a letter 'educating' the poor misinformed soul.

Vote with your feet and hit them where it hurts - on the bottom line. If you get a letter, cancel your account, demand your MAC code and go to an ISP that has yet to be bought. And make sure they know it's because of the letter.

The winners from all this bullshit? The Royal Mail, unbribed ISPs, IP redirection services like Relakks, and SSL newsgroup providers.

On the upside, with a bit of luck it'll drive forward devleopment efforts for an efficient, point-to-point encrypted P2P service where no peer knows the endpoint it's talking to.

Puts me in mind of a song:

"We don't need no education,

We don't need no thought control."

Shit, I didn't ask Pink Floyd's permission. Copyright theft! Call the rozzers!

Phase 1: Sue P2P developers

Phase 2: Sue customers

Phase 3: Press gang ISPs

Phase 4: ?

Phase 5: Profit!

the entire Internet is a packet-switched peer-to-peer network. My packets get sent to the next peer computer in the network, to the next, to the next, and so on until it reaches the peer in the network it's supposed to go to. Then the destination peer sends a packet to a peer in my general direction, to the next peer, and the next, until it gets back to me.

If you don't believe me, go look at your outbound router. The next computer in line is a peer to yours, thanks to TCP/IP. All this P2P nonsense is just people trying to censor the Internet. If they can stop virtual circuits (P2P connections through multiple networks) due to suspected piracy, they can block *any* connection, including land-line phone calls (which also go through the Internet).

"beep-beep-beep...We're sorry, but your phone call has been disconnected because the receiver is under suspicion of software piracy. Please hang up and try again later."

If the ISPs don't stand up for us, no one will - because no one else can, the ISPs own the equipment. Warrantless wiretaps leads to warrantless censorship.

...a compressed archive.

OK, so suppose these ISPs manage to piss off the heavy downloaders enough for them to move off to another ISP. So the ISP's network load goes down and the rest of the customers see a faster service.

Great.

But wait. The customers have already paid for the faster service (remember, up to XXX Mb/s?) so they won't be paying any more. And bang goes the motive for them to upgrade to the latest super-fast offering from the ISP.

Oops!

Stealing is the unauthorised taking of something.

It keeps on coming up, but stealing it is not the act of depriving is the act of taking.

Anyway, P2P can be used for a number of legitimate uses, so that is a bad use of the description.

Instead of all this three strikes rule blah blah, why don't they just tell us what is copyrighted and protected, and prevent the download. I would actually subscribe to something like that if it didn't cost, sometimes I am not sure if an item is allowed to be replicated or not, so I tend to err on caution.

And yeah, P2P does mean those involved in piracy are the pirates as well, so fair game. But, come on there is a lot of stuff that is copylefted and a lot in the public domain, we need someway of determining that.

Indeed, not the unauthorised copying of it. That's another crime entirely.

Holy moly.

I guess that we get that 2Gig cyber-implant - if we see or hear any copyrighted material we'd need to be cut off from the "hive mind".

Where interoperability becomes better and better, all future systems will be hobbled by dumb DRM systems.

When my car's headlight has its own IP address - will the performance rights lobby force me to install DRM-style software too?

It's going to be a long, slow death for the performance management industry. Hopefully the downloads will bleed them dry until they have no voice.

Only in the last 50-70 years has such a carbuncle come into existence, hopefully it will go away a lot quicker when it realises it's not actually needed anymore.

Look at music through the generations. 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and even the 90's.

We are 8 years into the 21st century and exactly what defines the music sphere in this decade? Stereotypes and sueing your customers. Jokers.

Just look.

Harmless gay boy bands to appeal to the under 13 girls.

Black gangster music claiming how hard it is on the 'streets' despite daddy being a doctor - appealing to boys under 18 and anyone else lacking enough foresight to see through the pretence.

Indie rock - For the long haired skanks who wish to be alternative and different whilst forgetting just how long ago now the beatles came out and just how much they have been ripped off by sucessive 'bands'

Rock/Grugne/Emo - Staple of White American teenagers, distributed over here by labels who spend vast amounts of money promoting American culture, when it fact it is anything but American culture - it is American record label culture where they spend more on promoting artists then they do on A&R. Formuliac to the ninth degree. The age of these bands remain the same, the music stays the same, only the faces are different. And you thought that actresses, models and footballers had a short shelf life.

R&B/D&B, Soul and Rap. Exactly the same as above - except targeted at black teenagers.

Whatever happened to A&R? What ever happened to people who could actually sing AND write AND compose their OWN music.

On one level I really hope this tactic works and it stops p2p dead in its tracks. Who the fuck are the record labels going to blame for 3rd Quarter decline in CD's sales on then? Probably the Iranians.

They gave Robbie Williams £80 million. £80 million !!! And what is he doing now, running round all bearded up trying to spot flying saucers.

The record companies have become complacent. They blame falling sales on piracy. They are deluded. They are so much in each others pockets they forget that being competitive you need to take risks. They need to take risks and come up for some NEW music that people might want to listen to again rather than churning out the same old shite just redone just enough for the everage punter not to notice its the same album they bought just last year.

If the Beatles or Elvis only formed this year they wouldn't stand a chance getting released. Too much of a risk... Doesn't fit in the spreadsheet....

"Instead of all this three strikes rule blah blah, why don't they just tell us what is copyrighted and protected, and prevent the download. I would actually subscribe to something like that if it didn't cost, sometimes I am not sure if an item is allowed to be replicated or not, so I tend to err on caution."

you have nop idar how awarked and complex that would be

@AC Your legal skillz suck.

The Theft Act S.1(1) defines theft thusly:

"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

Therefore, copyright infringement is NOT theft as the original rights holder is not deprived of the copyrighted material.

The day of the announcement sky were in on this understanding, any time I try to download anything from usenet (encrypted or otherwise) my routers IP address is blocked and I have to go and reset the thing. Been through several support calls to muppets and they all claimed it was me imagining it until one guy in Ireland realised my line is near-perfect which is why there were no line errors, and it was the actual server doing it deliberately. He's put in a request to the server guys to contact me with an explanation but so far nothing - so it looks like if they can't prove its illegal, they will just block you anyway.

If you are interested to know what the problem download was - it was a cd of LinuxMCE and a couple of episodes of Long Way Round I missed the last week or two - things I can easily watch through iPlayer, but is better quality and faster to download from usenet. Plus I hate bittorrent, it's so slow, and the LinuxMCE mirrors are like 50kpbs, which is soul destroying.

The hilarious thing is, I went with Sky because I've decided to stop downloading my TV and instead use their satellite service - but the sky plus box only part-recorded the last two episodes, so I've missed a fifth of the series... not as amazing as they claim it is. Even when you try to go straight they spit in your face.... leaves a foul taste.... :(

An extensive source of films and music, or so I am told, and a lot faster than torrent (if you pay the sub fee of £4.50 a month)... Just Google for '[film name] rapidshare' - there are hundreds of well-kept 'blogs' that are basically RS/MU link farms. Are they going to monitor that as well? Can they, even? Would be interesting to know what the RS/torrent usage ratio is.

I'm on sky and just downloaded 400 gb without any problem from usenet. Speed same as usual. Connection still good. Admitted it's 3am so I'm not discounting things could be different in prime time.

Thanks for that info - I have been paranoid and panicking after the engineer said it was deliberately cutting me off and I'd not heard anything for days about it, infact, I still haven't, but when I got home yesterday (7.30pm) I tried downloading a little bit, so far so good - I managed about 600mb at my max speed (15mb), didn't have time to test anything really big - but usually it disconnects me after 5mb so I'm hoping it was some sort of glitch they fixed that won't be repeated - I switched from mid to max package around the same time as the announcement so maybe it was a coincidence.... mid worked perfectly for me until I upgraded.

Anyway - the Sky service seems to be alot better than people led me to believe - I get good speeds and their customer service people are really friendly and helpful, but god forbid you have a problem, their first-line support engineers were nice, but dumb, and read from scripts - second-line were rude, confused as to why I wouldn't want my connection reset, and basically called me a liar for an hour until they saw the problem, and their third line guys never even rang me back - so I'm not sure if I hit a limit or they fixed anything, it just started working again.

I downloaded 400mb not gb via GigaNews. I live a long way from the exchange so get around 4mb encrypted but after 60k on Pipex then spit Tiscali blocked on port 119 (paying 32 quid a month) was over the moon. It seems to do around 4mb all the time but I only usually download overnight. I'm happy with the service I don't know how they do it for a tenner. I've never used broadband support for sky but rumour has it that most ISP's are crap at support and expensive with it. These days my biggest downloads are OS and similar stuff which being an ex mainframe man I always do off peak.