PDA

View Full Version : Net firms in music pirates deal



Barbarossa
07-24-2008, 10:52 AM
http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/9971/bpilogo6713286ad0.gifNet firms in music pirates deal

Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online.

The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music.

Hard core file-sharers could see their broadband connections slowed, under measures proposed by the UK government.

BT, Virgin, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse have all signed up.

Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, which represents the music industry, said: "All of the major ISPs in the UK now recognise they have a responsibility to deal with illegal file-sharers on their networks."

Mr Taylor said it had taken years to persuade ISPs to adopt this view.

The plan commits the firms to working towards a "significant reduction" in the illegal sharing of music.

It also commits the net firms to develop legal music services. "Conversations are ongoing between record labels and ISPs," said Mr Taylor.

Letters to pirates

The BPI has focused on educational efforts and limited legal action in recent years, in contrast to the US, which has embarked on tens of thousands of lawsuits against alleged file sharers.

The six internet service providers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR).

The Motion Picture Association of America has also signed up.

The BPI said the memoranum covered consumers who were both uploading and downloading music.

Mr Taylor said: "The focus is on people sharing files illegally; there is not an acceptable level of file-sharing. Musicians need to be paid like everyone else."

He added: "File-sharing is not anonymous, it is not secret, it is against the law."

At the same time the government has started a consultation exercise that could result in laws that force net firms to tackle music piracy. A working group will be set up under the auspices of regulator Ofcom to look at effective measures to tackle persistant file-sharers.

Mr Taylor said newspaper reports stating that online users could be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing were incorrect.

"A levy is not an issue under discussion. It has not been discussed between us and government and as far as we are aware it is not on the table."

He said: "There should be effective mechanisms in place (to deter file-sharing) and as long as they are effective, we don't mind what they are."

The consultation document proposed that hard core file-sharers could have technical measures imposed, such as "traffic management or filtering and marking of legitimate content to facilitate identification".

In the past few weeks net firms Virgin and BT have sent letters to some customers identified by the BPI, which represents the UK record industry, as persistent music pirates.

'Long process'

Before now the BPI has called for a "three-strikes" system which would see net connections of persistent pirates terminated if three warnings went ignored.

Many net firms have resisted the call from the BPI and have said it is not their job to act as policemen.

Feargal Sharkey, chief executive of British Music Rights, said the plan was "a first step, and a very big step, in what we all acknowledge is going to be quite a long process".

Mr Sharkey, formerly lead singer with The Undertones added: "Government, particularly in the UK, has now realised there is an issue, there is a problem there."

One BBC News website user Mark, from Hampshire, said he downloaded and shared files illegally and argued customers were "getting their own back".

In an e-mail, he said: "I used to run half a dozen record shops in the 80s and saw how far the fat cats of the record industry would go, in milking customers and retailers dry with more hyped rubbish."

"Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back."

"So will this make me sharing a CD with my next-door neighbour over the fence illegal?" he added.

:source: Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7522334.stm

redpill
07-24-2008, 11:15 AM
In my opinion what the music industry is trying to do will cause nothing but more piracy. Maybe not in the UK, where the "customers" of filesharing sites or warez sites, will be discouraged to download music. Also it will be cool to see how the music companies will deal with the number of pirates from other countries where they don't have that much influence. And i totally agree with Mark, from Hempshire....

Sylar666
07-24-2008, 02:48 PM
These douchebags are fighting a losing battle. I still don't understand how major ISPs can succumb to an obvious and shady attempt. It is not their interset to restrain users. Not speaking of filesharers who really use (and pay) for the bandwidth. Then what is Internet for - reading Emails, surfing? Technology is skyrocketing, HD - streaming and stuff is at large and they talk about restrictions?? Wake up, Dinosaurs! You are done! They are dancing around the fire at their burial feast and I am glad to bury them. Long live Bittorrent, long live P2P!

mee2wo
07-24-2008, 07:44 PM
It is not their interset to restrain users. Not speaking of filesharers who really use (and pay) for the bandwidth. Then what is Internet for - reading Emails, surfing?
+1
If it wasn't for filesharing & P2P l wouldn't need broadband.

lukee
07-24-2008, 09:08 PM
It is not their interset to restrain users. Not speaking of filesharers who really use (and pay) for the bandwidth. Then what is Internet for - reading Emails, surfing?
+1
If it wasn't for filesharing & P2P l wouldn't need broadband.
without piracy i could settle with a 3Mbit connection.

222MHz
07-24-2008, 09:16 PM
ssh/sftp/SSL/tunnels/blowfish etc etc.. Who cares what they do.

Oluwa
07-25-2008, 01:20 AM
So Clarify..this is only for sharers(Uploaders) of copyright material and not Downloaders?

222MHz
07-25-2008, 01:29 AM
Is that ^^^^ to me? If so..

No, all of those listed if applied to both ends would give you traffic that is as secure as your online banking. SSL usenet traffic for example when applied to say port 443 is indistinguishable from regular https traffic thus less likely to run into a bottleneck from an isp which you may find on 119 or 563.

ovisan
07-25-2008, 08:11 AM
I got that 4Mb\s from Virgin and every day between 5 and mid night I can only use 10% of my isp speed. It started a few months ago. I will change to BeThere soon, fook em

Appzalien
07-25-2008, 02:52 PM
There is a way to let it be known your not happy and gain benefits at the same time. Unfortunately it means giving up the internet for a few months and go camping or biking or swimming instead.

If there were an organized cancelation of ISP Subscriptions, large enough to hurt, it might change their minds. The benifits for a successful campaign would be at least a year or half year resigning savings on the rates. With thousands or hundreds of thousands of lost subscriptions the ISP's would be begging for their subscribers back.

It's not an easy thing to do, most people would say they're all for it and then hope everyone else cancels so they don't have to. You need the support of the file sharing services in your area, places like the piratebay would help in the organization of the dirty deed.

It doesn't matter if the files are in the US or EU, when an ISP gets in the act they basically squeal on you no matter where you get the files from. There you go, SQUEALERS, these ISP's should now be known as ISQ's or Internet Squealers.

geezainthebase
07-26-2008, 11:14 PM
Remember the good old days when you recorded the Top 40 on an Amstrad tape to tape casette player an do your mate a copy !

How is that any different from what we do today, SKY Plus, Streaming, Flicker, FACEBOOK and anything else you care to mention is still the same...copying and sharing is here to stay and like 222mhz states there are already alternatives and doubtless there will be many more to come.

222MHz
07-26-2008, 11:51 PM
And to add....... Governments, Corporations, and simply working industry are slow at adopting new technology. Whatever they come up with we will beat, thus making them develop new technology to try to stop us. Which in turn we beat again and again. Remember the same people who are smart enough to develop technology are the same people with a different /nick destroying that technology with a beer in hand instead of a tie around their neck.

Have a look at what you gates ball lickers are in for..


Kill Switches and Remote Control



It used to be that just the entertainment industries wanted to control your computers -- and televisions and iPods and everything else -- to ensure that you didn't violate any copyright rules. But now everyone else wants to get their hooks into your gear.

OnStar will soon include the ability for the police to shut off your engine remotely. Buses are getting the same capability, in case terrorists want to re-enact the movie Speed. The Pentagon wants a kill switch installed on airplanes, and is worried about potential enemies installing kill switches on their own equipment.

Microsoft is doing some of the most creative thinking along these lines, with something it's calling "Digital Manners Policies." According to its patent application, DMP-enabled devices would accept broadcast "orders" limiting their capabilities. Cell phones could be remotely set to vibrate mode in restaurants and concert halls, and be turned off on airplanes and in hospitals. Cameras could be prohibited from taking pictures in locker rooms and museums, and recording equipment could be disabled in theaters. Professors finally could prevent students from texting one another during class.

The possibilities are endless, and very dangerous. Making this work involves building a nearly flawless hierarchical system of authority. That's a difficult security problem even in its simplest form. Distributing that system among a variety of different devices -- computers, phones, PDAs, cameras, recorders -- with different firmware and manufacturers, is even more difficult. Not to mention delegating different levels of authority to various agencies, enterprises, industries and individuals, and then enforcing the necessary safeguards.

Once we go down this path -- giving one device authority over other devices -- the security problems start piling up. Who has the authority to limit functionality of my devices, and how do they get that authority? What prevents them from abusing that power? Do I get the ability to override their limitations? In what circumstances, and how? Can they override my override?

How do we prevent this from being abused? Can a burglar, for example, enforce a "no photography" rule and prevent security cameras from working? Can the police enforce the same rule to avoid another Rodney King incident? Do the police get "superuser" devices that cannot be limited, and do they get "supercontroller" devices that can limit anything? How do we ensure that only they get them, and what do we do when the devices inevitably fall into the wrong hands?

It's comparatively easy to make this work in closed specialized systems -- OnStar, airplane avionics, military hardware -- but much more difficult in open-ended systems. If you think Microsoft's vision could possibly be securely designed, all you have to do is look at the dismal effectiveness of the various copy-protection and digital-rights-management systems we've seen over the years. That's a similar capabilities-enforcement mechanism, albeit simpler than these more general systems.

And that's the key to understanding this system. Don't be fooled by the scare stories of wireless devices on airplanes and in hospitals, or visions of a world where no one is yammering loudly on their cell phones in posh restaurants. This is really about media companies wanting to exert their control further over your electronics. They not only want to prevent you from surreptitiously recording movies and concerts, they want your new television to enforce good "manners" on your computer, and not allow it to record any programs. They want your iPod to politely refuse to copy music to a computer other than your own. They want to enforce *their* legislated definition of manners: to control what you do and when you do it, and to charge you repeatedly for the privilege whenever possible.

"Digital Manners Policies" is a marketing term. Let's call this what it really is: Selective Device Jamming. It's not polite, it's dangerous. It won't make anyone more secure -- or more polite.

Kill switches:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202400922 or http://tinyurl.com/6jy2ac
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06082008/news/regionalnews/busting_terror_114567.htm or http://tinyurl.com/5p5kaj
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/the-pentagons-n.html
http://spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6171

Digital Manners Policies:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080611-microsoft-patent-brings-miss-manners-into-the-digital-age.html or http://tinyurl.com/449bcc
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080125102%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080125102&RS=DN/20080125102 or http://tinyurl.com/68thpf

This essay originally appeared in Wired.com.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/06/securitymatters_0626 or http://tinyurl.com/4htrb4

Go Linux...