Ofcom details "three strikes" scheme for illegal downloads

How will get took to court by the Copyright owners? If it's your kids who doing the downloading. You going to ban your kids from using internet after 2 strikes?

By Nathan_Price on 28 May 2010

Does this apply to the record companies?

Failure to pay performers.
Using music without rights.
Pirating software for use in DRM.
Planting rootkit virus'

Nah, that's okay. They can afford expensive lawyers.

Justice now goes to the highest bidder.

I'm looking forward to the first case of mistaken idenity, so this law can be overturned in the high court.

By cheysuli on 28 May 2010

How do they identify the illegal material?

Twice now I have been visited by smaller companies, eager to demo their new server products by way of a torrent download. They are using P2P protocols to distribute material to which they have copyright - but it's not an illegal distribution. How can my ISP distinguish between these, and a blag of "Iron Man 2"?

By Steve_Cassidy on 28 May 2010

What about dynamic-ip addresses

How would this work with those people with dynamic ip addresses - which from my understanding is the vast bulk of broadband subscribers?

By FeaseyK on 28 May 2010

2 a year?

Oh right so you get two three downloads a year then. I will definitely save one of mine for the Adobe ull suite then. Is this not how it works?...

By TimoGunt on 28 May 2010

shocking. I just said two three downloads. I of course meant two free downloads

By TimoGunt on 28 May 2010

There's has to be money in creating P2P ISPs as well. 400,000 subscribers only. £10 a month more than other ISPs but you're immune. This is all quite laughable

By TimoGunt on 28 May 2010

@FeaseyK

DHCP servers can hold the MAC address corresponding to the IP address, with timestamps of DHCP lease start and end/renewal. So yes, if needed they can find out who had that IP at the time the download was made.

Obviously it's the router's IP, not the PC they can identify.

By luca_leonardi on 28 May 2010

@luca_leonardi

So if you swap routers when you download, they can't prove it was you...

By cheysuli on 28 May 2010

cheysuli

Are you serious?

By greemble on 28 May 2010

"rights holders send the IP address ..... to .... ISPs"
So how will they know which addresses to send? The Pirate Bay isn't going to tell rights holders. ISPs could monitor packets, but rights-holders can't.
Unless they set up fake download sites, how will they know what people are doing? And if they *do* offer copyright material, won't it be entrapment?

By davidsoap on 29 May 2010

alternate view

So how will this help if:
A) people hire CDs £ DVD's from the library and then rip them for their own use.
B) Record tracks from streaming web sites
3) Load Fully featured demos of say Adobe or Autocad software into Virtual box's and reset the virtual boxes every 30 days to reset the software.

By Jaberwocky on 29 May 2010

Mixing it up

Sorry about that A,B & then 3.Talk about mixing it up.My fingers arn't playing ball this morning :-)

By Jaberwocky on 29 May 2010

@greemble

About which part?

The law being bought or the record companies breaking it with impunity?

David Geffen (of Geffen records) bought an about-turn on the Digital Economy Bill when he hosted Mr Mandelson for a weekend in Corfu. The three strikes rule was not in the bill until that point.

SONY distributed a virus as "copy protection" on audio CD's (the rootkit virus) which contained ripped-off GPL software without license.

Edwin Collins ("never met a girl like you before") receives no money while record companies sell his song on compilation albums without the rights (they are pirating his song). His wife and manager says "we can't afford to pursue them". This is ONE example.

So, yes - I'm serious. Why are you incredulous? These are documented facts that in most cases have made the news in one place or another.

By cheysuli on 30 May 2010

@cheysuli

I don't know, but I woldn't be surprised if there were other ways to identify the home address of where the connection comes from. For example, on ADSL lines the ISP must know what phone line (number) is used to dial in.

By luca_leonardi on 30 May 2010

Easy to get round

The easiest way to get round the legislation is just to tag on a neighbours wifi internet connection. There is no way you can be identified, and if any letter from the ISP's comes back, its not going to your house. The ISP logs will only record which wireless router connects to the internet at the time of the download. Also, what happens if it's a laptop connected to a large wlan network at work? Who is responsible for the actions of the individual then?

The policing of it will be impractical, the punishments are toothless (unless the culture minister personally intervenes which is unlikely) and the ease at which you can change ISPs to a smaller one (perhaps running two ISPs in parallel, cable internet for main internet and a smaller disposable ADSL one for torrenting) makes it all too easy for the tech savy to avoid prosecution and all to easy for the non tech savvy with unsecured wireless networks or kids with internet access in their rooms to get punished for something they didn't do.

I think this bill has completely ignored the advice from IT professionals, and bowed to pressure from the big record companies.

If you want to stop piracy, the way to do it is by looking at, and addressing the reasons for piracy, not the ways in which it is carried out.

By mykeblack on 30 May 2010

@Steve_Cassidy

Can we cut this rubbish argument for once and for all - no-one is suggesting or has ever suggested (except perhaps by internet forum rumour) that anyone who downloads any file via torrent or uses any other P2P protocol will be reported automatically. The rights holders will need to demonstrate that it was a file containing copyrighted material, and the ISPs are acting on IP addresses that rights holders have specifically told them about - the ISPs themselves aren't watching for everyone using P2P. For example rights holders will watch the IP addresses downloading (or more likely uploading) an illegal torrent, determine which ISP they belong to, then report those to the ISP with the time and date.

By halsteadk on 31 May 2010

@Nathan_Price - it is your internet connection, you signed the contract, you are responsible. Educate your kids... :-S

@Steve_Cassidy - I guess the legitimate software isn't going to be called "irinMan2.mov" :-D My guess is, the rights holders will track certain files on torrents or warez sites and ask for those IP addresses to be warned. They aren't saying blanket anybody who is using bittorrent should get a warning...

@davidsoap - torrents aren't web sites, and the rights holders can attach to the torrent and monitor - that is how they have been doing it until now.

It isn't just the MAC address, they won't know your MAC address from another, or all of the devices in your household, they will be able to monitor which end-port (building/house/flat) that IP address gets assigned to.

As to using neighbours Wi-Fi, yes, until they lock it. Here (Germany), it is now law, that a Wi-Fi has to be locked with a password, you get a fine if you don't. I imagine a similar thing will come in as part of the DEB.

By big_D on 31 May 2010

@cheysuli

The router idea.
I'm sure you're aware that wouldn't work
Whichever router you use, it's still your account with the ISP

By greemble on 31 May 2010

Motive Behind The Bill.

The primary desire of the government to pass this bill was for more internet control, not to stop file sharing. It will be used to frivolously take down anti-government websites. Police state here we come. Or are we there already?

By adolfobama on 1 Jun 2010

I see where this will lead....

It will simply drive filesharing underground. Rather than people downloading music and movies, they'll be buying the in pubs and from market stalls - simply shifting the responsibility from themselves onto shady criminal groups. This is the digital world - there is always a way around detection too. The record companies/movie studios want to stop piracy then drop the ridiculous pricing models they have. Simples.

By everton2004 on 1 Jun 2010

UK Gov seeks to criminalize all Net users to gain revenue

More untenable Laws from the’ UK Law Makers’ with the sole purpose it seems to criminalize everyone for the sake of collecting additional revenue streams.This maybe seen as a means of supplementing lost revenues from an ever-increasing Bankrupt proven incompetent Government.

Any private home or business could have someone download Copyright material illegally without the owner’s knowledge or consent. This ‘Daft Draft’ proposal yet again proves no one in Government seems to understand the basic rudimentary elements of the Internet.

If anyone should complain as to ‘Copyright Infringement’ it should perhaps be me. As after releasing the Formula for ‘Worlds First Communications Platforms High Capacity Super Controller’ under strictly controlled contracts to BT in 1995 I am informed it is allegedly being used under the name of A.N.P.D.S. in breach of agreements in the MoD. Link to proof document here: http://tinyurl.com/ycsgu49

Signed Carl Barron Chairman of agpcuk
http://carl-agpcuk.livejournal.com/
http://www.dorsetvisualguide.co.uk/

By Carl_Barron on 2 Jun 2010

criminalize all Net users?

I suggest you read the article before you post more of your paranoid spam.

This is not the Government criminalising anyone, this is for civil actions against copyright theft.

By the way, as for the "ever-increasing Bankrupt proven incompetent Government" - Did you not notice the election? We now got a new Government - nothing as yet 'proven' about them.


By the way, you don't need to write 'Signed' at the bottom of your posts - we can see it's been signed by you
- Twice, in fact.

By greemble on 2 Jun 2010

John

I understand the arguments for and against this bill, but there are still some elements that greatly concern me - however they decide to draw up their code of practice. For a start:

"The ISPs will also maintain "an anonymised list of alleged serial copyright infringers".

I thought that was supposed to be illegal now: The secretly storing of information about people without giving them access to it? The Freedom of Information Act? Also:

- What is the criteria for 'suspected'?
- Does anyone independent have oversight on this, or will the ISPs become the sole arbiters, judge and jury?
- How can you proclaim and fight for your innocence if you don't even know you're considered suspect?

You could be potentially be kept on their 'dodgy' list for years without receiving letters or having any knowledge of it - all the while with your name being secretly passed around between companies as a potential criminal.

- How securely will this information be held?
- What is to stop other 'interested' third parties gaining access to it?
- Will anyone be held responsible for it, or will it be another almighty fudge with everyone shifting blame when it it routinely stolen or 'misplaced'?

Not to be too melodramatic, but English Law has been based on a 'Presumption of Innocence' for a great many centuries - and that is indeed now written into European Law too. This does seem to fly against that principle somewhat: 'We deem you guilty so now prove your innocence to us'.

I don't like the idea of the best part of a thousand years of our legal system and rights being overturned, to the grave detriment of the individual, simply to allow a select few companies to maintain their profit margins.

I like it even less that those companies that seek to overturn our fundamental principals and rights are nothing more than entertainment companies.

I like it even less still that the bulk of those companies, and their accusations, will be coming from abroad - beyond our jurisdiction and capability for recourse.

The fact that our last government were either too lazy, too inept or too lacking of interest to try and understand what they did with this bill doesn't make it right.

The new government has promised to take an axe to past legislations and current quangos, and I for one would like to see both the Digital Economy Act and Ofcom to be among the first casualties.

If they can't be bothered to do it right then they shouldn't do it at all.

By Mr_John_T on 2 Jun 2010

so if anyone is downloading movie or audio files illegaly they would get a letter of warning first? or would you get a knock at the door from the police without warning?

By neewbees on 14 Oct 2010

so if anyone is downloading movie or audio files illegaly they would get a letter of warning first? or would you get a knock at the door from the police without warning?

By neewbees on 14 Oct 2010

so if anyone is downloading movie or audio files illegaly they would get a letter of warning first? or would you get a knock at the door from the police without warning?

By neewbees on 14 Oct 2010