Welcome to 1984

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm>:

"People in the UK who go online and illegally download music and films
may have their internet access cut under plans the government is
considering.

A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
would be required to take action over users who access pirated
material.

Under a "three strikes" rule they would receive an e-mail warning,
suspension, and then termination of their contract.

Six million people a year are estimated to download files illegally in
the UK."
--
Martin Jay

Martin Jay wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm>:
>
> "People in the UK who go online and illegally download music and films
> may have their internet access cut under plans the government is
> considering.
>
> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
> material.
>
> Under a "three strikes" rule they would receive an e-mail warning,
> suspension, and then termination of their contract.
>
> Six million people a year are estimated to download files illegally in
> the UK."

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20080212120719

Given some of the comments from "the public" on the BBC's site, a lot of
them are morons anyway. Pity you can't legistlate for that ;-)


--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

Carl Waring wrote:
> Martin Jay wrote:
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm>:
>>
>> "People in the UK who go online and illegally download music and
>> films may have their internet access cut under plans the government
>> is considering.
>>
>> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
>> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
>> material.
>>
>> Under a "three strikes" rule they would receive an e-mail warning,
>> suspension, and then termination of their contract.
>>
>> Six million people a year are estimated to download files illegally
>> in the UK."
>
> http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20080212120719
>
> Given some of the comments from "the public" on the BBC's site, a lot
> of them are morons anyway. Pity you can't legistlate for that ;-)

Just to quote one example...

"I download TV shows from the US all the time - they're not illegal as
they've been shown on public TV. I do not share copyrighted material."

See what I mean? Morons.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
> material.

This will make life more difficult for the security services,
VPN to public, and private pay for servers, will go straight through,
possibly securely encrypted, bypassing the ISP.
Since many use VPN to work from home, and decoding every VPN
connection would be a pain in the butt, I can't see how they can
block some VPN connections and not others.
Accessing the VPN connection would lay the ISP's open
to possible liability for corporate espionage if sensitive
corporate material appeared to have benn revealed as a result
of accessing someones legitimate connection to their
corporate network.
Trust politicians to open a whole new can of worms with a
not fully thought through proposal, to placate a few fat cats
who seem to post massive annual profits.
Anyway I thought the trend was to bypass the middle men
and publish your own material.
Plus most protection systems and digital rights management,
seem to fall/fail at the first hurdle.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
>> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
>> material.
>
> This will make life more difficult for the security services,
> VPN to public, and private pay for servers, will go straight through,
> possibly securely encrypted, bypassing the ISP.
> Since many use VPN to work from home, and decoding every VPN
> connection would be a pain in the butt, I can't see how they can
> block some VPN connections and not others.
> Accessing the VPN connection would lay the ISP's open
> to possible liability for corporate espionage if sensitive
> corporate material appeared to have benn revealed as a result
> of accessing someones legitimate connection to their
> corporate network.
> Trust politicians to open a whole new can of worms with a
> not fully thought through proposal, to placate a few fat cats
> who seem to post massive annual profits.
> Anyway I thought the trend was to bypass the middle men
> and publish your own material.
> Plus most protection systems and digital rights management,
> seem to fall/fail at the first hurdle.

Irrespective of how it is achieved, if widespread piracy happens, the
net result will be total loss of a business sector.

It happened to the music industry when the Cassette tape came in.

It simply wasnt worth ploughing money nto oriogial creative bandds sany
more. Result was a ghastly period of cheesy pop music, followed by even
cheesier punk.

Only CD's restored a little profitability, and that disappeared when CD
ripping and burning software got common.If you wat free access to
everything, don't be surprised if the quality goes to shite.

The salaries of the few fat cats are not the issue: Its the salaries of
the artists, the studio teams, the sound men, the camera men, the makeup
artists and everything that goes into making a film, or a CD, that is at
stake.

I thought through this one years ago, and one solution is to charge the
ISP by the byte downloaded of coypright material. And let them bill the
customers. But that doesn't address peer to peer stuff.

You could simply block all access to incoming ports, as an ISP, unless
people went onto a paying tariff..then charge them per byte downloaded
OFF their sites..but then..you have an issue with perfectly legal
material being downloaded.

Its a real issue. What you do not want to do is argue against someone
paying. That will as I said, simply mean no one will put anything online
at all.

Martin Jay wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm>:
>
> "People in the UK who go online and illegally download music and films
> may have their internet access cut under plans the government is
> considering.
>
> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
> material.
>
> Under a "three strikes" rule they would receive an e-mail warning,
> suspension, and then termination of their contract.
>
> Six million people a year are estimated to download files illegally in
> the UK."

"1984" has been with us for quite some time and this is just another
extension of the the rapidly progressing 'surveillance' society - before
long, it will be cameras and microphones in the Tv (as well as on the
streets and elsewhere) and if you don't conform, a quick visit to room 101
for a little interrogation and re-orientation!

George Orwell was correct.

BRG

Carl Waring wrote:
> Carl Waring wrote:
>> Martin Jay wrote:
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm>:
>>>
>>> "People in the UK who go online and illegally download music and
>>> films may have their internet access cut under plans the government
>>> is considering.
>>>
>>> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
>>> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
>>> material.
>>>
>>> Under a "three strikes" rule they would receive an e-mail warning,
>>> suspension, and then termination of their contract.
>>>
>>> Six million people a year are estimated to download files illegally
>>> in the UK."
>>
>> http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20080212120719
>>
>> Given some of the comments from "the public" on the BBC's site, a lot
>> of them are morons anyway. Pity you can't legistlate for that ;-)
>
> Just to quote one example...
>
> "I download TV shows from the US all the time - they're not illegal as
> they've been shown on public TV. I do not share copyrighted material."
>
> See what I mean? Morons.

Not really. Except for the technology involved it is no different from a
friend in the USA recording a programme on a VHS tape and sending it to me
in the mail. Am I committing a crime by watching the tape?

(kim)

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
>> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
>> material.
>
> This will make life more difficult for the security services,
> VPN to public, and private pay for servers, will go straight through,
> possibly securely encrypted, bypassing the ISP.

My binary newsgroup headers have been encrypted for some time, not for legal
reasons, I just don't like the idea of AOL being able to read everything I
download.

(kim)

kim wrote:
> Carl Waring wrote:
>> Carl Waring wrote:
>>> Martin Jay wrote:
>>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm>:
>>>>
>>>> "People in the UK who go online and illegally download music and
>>>> films may have their internet access cut under plans the government
>>>> is considering.
>>>>
>>>> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
>>>> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
>>>> material.
>>>>
>>>> Under a "three strikes" rule they would receive an e-mail warning,
>>>> suspension, and then termination of their contract.
>>>>
>>>> Six million people a year are estimated to download files illegally
>>>> in the UK."
>>> http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20080212120719
>>>
>>> Given some of the comments from "the public" on the BBC's site, a lot
>>> of them are morons anyway. Pity you can't legistlate for that ;-)
>> Just to quote one example...
>>
>> "I download TV shows from the US all the time - they're not illegal as
>> they've been shown on public TV. I do not share copyrighted material."
>>
>> See what I mean? Morons.
>
> Not really. Except for the technology involved it is no different from a
> friend in the USA recording a programme on a VHS tape and sending it to me
> in the mail. Am I committing a crime by watching the tape?
>

Strictly you are, yes.


> (kim)
>
>

"Martin Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm>:
>
> "People in the UK who go online and illegally download music and films
> may have their internet access cut under plans the government is
> considering.
>
> A draft consultation Green Paper suggests internet service providers
> would be required to take action over users who access pirated
> material.
>
> Under a "three strikes" rule they would receive an e-mail warning,
> suspension, and then termination of their contract.
>
> Six million people a year are estimated to download files illegally in
> the UK."
> --
> Martin Jay

I can see many ISPs losing vast amounts of customers and closing down. So
why has no one ever prosecuted any UK ISP that facilitates child porn for
example? They used to have it freely available in newsgroups, now they
assist offenders with access to it.