backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by rdeegvainl.. on Jul 8 at 9:32 AM

Music industry and ISP at odds over what to do with known P2P users

UK ISP Virgin Media, in a joint partnership with the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), has thus far sent out 800 letters to file sharers to inform them of the consequences should they continue. Packaged in envelopes that said, “Important: If you don’t read this, your broadband could be disconnected,” the letters seeks to dissuade users from file-sharing under the threat of losing their internet accounts.

Luckily for them, however, Virgin doesn’t seem to want to follow through.

The wording of the letter is a mistake, says Virgin, and it plans to review the letters sometime in August. Speaking with BBC Radio’s Newsbeat, a Virgin representative said that there was “absolutely no possibility” they would disconnect accounts that the BPI has linked to filesharing.

“It is important to let our customers know that their accounts have been used in a certain way but we are happy to accept it may not be the account holder that's involved,” said Virgin representative Asam Ahmad.

“It could be someone else in the family or someone living in a shared house. It could even be someone stealing WiFi. We are not making any form of accusation.”

Customers’ responses have been far from warm -- many have accused the BPI’s investigations of being inaccurate, and others have indicated that they are not happy with being ratted out.

“I suppose it is possible that someone accessed our wireless network from outside the flat but, beyond that, it definitely wasn't one of us,” said one of the recipients. “The campaign is doomed to fail. Virgin will lose a lot of customers over this because people don't like to be accused of stealing music.”

The BPI says it is serious enough to take the matter to court, and the UK government has set a deadline of next spring for ISPs and music companies to reach an accord before it steps in.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 8:09:09 AM , Rating: 4
... that this is being discussed openly and the BPI and other record company lobby groups get their chance to show what they want and how they behave to the whole entire country/world.

Before I go further, theft is theft, copyright or otherwise.

But punishments should be proportionate.

There needs to be a big debate out in the open about how to best deal with this problem.

There is a culture of "casual" piracy that has grown and will be hard to eradicate but I think that it can be if handled correctly.

So how should it be handled?

Banning everyone at that access point from entering the internet full stop, I think, is going too far.

Should certain known web sites be filtered by ISPs? Or would this be a unforgivable breach of our freedoms to travel anywhere on the internet? I don't think many people would complain about known child pornography sites being filtered for example though?

The time has come for countries and politicians to decide where this is going, not just the highest paid lawyers in high court cases of little Jonny "blue beard" Smith Vs Sony BMG as this will only go one way.




RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mrteddyears on 7/4/2008 8:28:58 AM , Rating: 1
I think the limped wristed governments in the EU will just roll over and give in. Who do you think pays for Brown and the idiots he has around him in the UK.

Also how do the BPI actually monitor this when companies like BBC and SKY now use P2P to transfer material around.

Theft is theft unless a lawyer rights it up and makes it law then it okay


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 8:40:45 AM , Rating: 1
Nor really sure why I got rated down, I was just asking a few questions and trying to start a debate about how else to deal with piracy???

I'm not sure that all the governments are as bad as they UK's.

The EU will probably wade in soon too, especially as someone utters the magic words "human rights" of course.

Is there a way that corps like the BBC, ITV, SKY etc could modify their on-line media players to identify that their traffic is "legitimate"?

Linux distros are usually shared via p2p too, not sure how these could be identified as "legal" too?

To clarify.

Downloading a copy of an album from a file share is theft.

Ripping from your legitimately purchased CD to share over a media server or iPod however is not, in my opinion, ut in the UK it is illegal, I believe?

Then when you get into the stories of mechanic garages being sued for not having a public broadcast licence when they have a radio on, things just get silly.

These laws need to be clarified and updated to make them reasonable to the modern day.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By nosfe on 7/4/2008 8:50:42 AM , Rating: 5
You got rated down by Jingjing and Chacha because of your dissident actions so next time please "advance harmony" and play along nicely with your beloved government.

Have a nice day.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By audiomaniaca on 7/4/2008 2:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
guys, please advance harmony!


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By AndreasM on 7/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 10:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
I see, fair enough.

I regretted the copyright thing as soon as I pressed "post comment" really, as you'll see in a later post that I mention about "copying" onto an iPod/home server.

It does seem to be an odd law however, as most music playing devices that I have had or seen (mobile phone, iPods etc) come with software specifically to rip music from CD onto the device, even though this is illegal in the UK* which seems a little crazy to me.

The software that SonyEricsson provide with their phones was very simple to use.

* I'm not 100% sure that this is the case, please let me know if I'm wrong.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Foxorroxors on 7/5/2008 4:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Your legaly allowed to have a backup of any media be it Music cd, DVD, or computer game (pc/ps3/xbox ect) as long as you own the original. This does apply to the UK mate.

Foxor


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By sxr7171 on 7/5/2008 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 3
Here's the thing. Let's set this in the US where the RIAA is around.

If the RIAA "catches" you downloading music they send your ISP a letter and sometimes they file a lawsuit against you and threaten you with something like $3000 a song.

Sometimes I actually own the CD but I don't have it on my phone or my laptop (my desktop has all my ripped music). So I download it knowing that I own the CD.

As aside say if the RIAA charged you with downloading 100 songs and threatens you with: $3000 x 100 = $300,000, you could go to a used CD store and buy up everything you downloaded and then claim that you own(ed) everything you downloaded.

The defendant in a situation like this would still be required to hire a lawyer and inventory all their CDs and then produce proof that you own all that music. That is a cost in itself. After all that you never know if the slick RIAA lawyers will still manage to win against you. There is a cost to downloading music even if you are doing it legally. That's why these ways they use to detect file downloading are bunk. It should be the RIAA's burden to prove you are illegally downloading that music. Simply saying that "you downloaded this file" is not enough.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mindless1 on 7/5/2008 11:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's not quite so clear cut, with the chance they might make a token gesture at protecting the disc and thus be able to claim circumvention, or that their license of what you can do with the content may be restrictive to the point that you may or may not have the right to do some particular thing even with the original, let alone a copy.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By cmdrdredd on 7/5/2008 1:47:21 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is that the recording industry and others involved in media through traditional means, (television and radio to name a couple) are thoroughly afraid of the changing digital technology of our time. They probably don't have any real idea how things like iPods, media servers, digital homes using DVRs for everything work in everyday life. I believe the company heads just hear "ripping a CD" or "downloading a show online" and think "they can't do that...it's our copyright" and they go after everyone involved. Instead of embracing the technology of P2P and other sharing outlets for monetary gain, they attempt to threaten everyone with fat lawsuits and/or removal of service.

Recently I heard an interview with Kid Rock who flat out refuses to allow any of his music to be downloaded via iTunes or Zune etc. Now, he then further says that people are stealing his music online. I don't like Kid Rock and could care less, but the point is the artists are refusing to work with the technology. I and MANY others in the world today would rather hop online and purchase a song or 2 that I like and drop it on my iPod or Zune instead of driving to the music store and searching high and low for the CDs that have the songs I want. I only want 2 songs, not the other 10 which suck. What if I have to buy multiple CDs to get the tracks I want? I don't even care about the booklet and artwork which was another one of Kid Rock's points. He designed the artwork or someone else spent time and has to get paid too. Well, too bad. The digital environment that today's kids are living in isn't the same as it was 30 years ago when you wanted to have the latest tape or LP of your favorite band. These days you want to have the top tracks you may have heard on the radio or were introduced to by a friend. I don't personally care to ever buy another CD.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mrteddyears on 7/7/2008 4:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with you on this point !!!!


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By porkpie on 7/4/2008 2:06:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you probably got modded down because you equated copyright infringement with theft. To do so is an insult to everyone whose real property has been stolen.
I've had plenty of property stolen and I consider it a fact, not an insult.

Theft is depriving someone of control over their property. When you steal albums, you're doing just that.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By sxr7171 on 7/5/2008 4:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. However, if people didn't download music this slow changing of attitudes in record labels everywhere wouldn't be happening. They would still be gypping you for $18.99 for about 10-14 songs. I like seeing CDs at $8.99 and $9.99 more often these days. Record labels are starting to slowly allow download sales of their music. Some are even doing it without DRM like Rhapsody (who I signed up with after they announced a DRM-free music store).

Sometimes the biggest beneficial changes have to happen in a way that isn't "100% legit" for the standards of the day. Take for example Gandhi and Civil Disobedience.

This change in the record business should have happened yesterday and it would not have happened at all without easy downloads. They need to realize that providing music to people for money is still profitable but it will never be like the glory days of being able to drop $36,000 at the strip club every Saturday night on the expense account. Getting music from creator to listener doesn't "need" a middleman any more. But as consumers, we like convenience, so if you can help us find and acquire music we like, we'll pay you for that convenience. That's the level we're at. So music industry executive need to understand that they might not be able to take the corporate jet out to San Francisco to eat at French Laundry, but they might have to settle for first class on United instead. So basically run it like you are Ticketmaster but selling music. You want to hype up useless artists with millions of dollars of advertising and hope you found the next big star - go ahead, but not on my dime as a music consumer. This sort of high risk expenditure is not needed. Just find the artists who are already talented, they are promoting themselves on the internet these days! How much easier than that can it be to find talent now?

All I'm saying is streamline the business and offer us a fair deal. In other words: get with the times.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mindless1 on 7/5/2008 11:29:42 PM , Rating: 3
I love how you deliberately twisted the definition of theft to suit your argument. Unfortunately it still fails, since the (music industry for example) still has control over what they do with their property, even if someone else also has control they are not depriving the music industry of doing what the industry set out to do - offer that for sale on a CD or digital download.

I know that you want an overly simple world where we only use a handful of words and try to paint everything as good or evil. That's why you like the word steal, because you feel everyone is MORE emotionally charged by that word than the accurate description of what these illegal acts are.

Read the following very slowy a few times till it sinks in: There are more illegal acts relating to property than just "stealing" or "theft". Using the wrong word might be overlooked if you were simply ignorant of the vocabulary but instead you try to twist terms deliberately which won't bolster your argument unless only talking to a child.

If you agree with the law, great. If you think people should be prosecuted, also an opinion you're entitled to have. Neither of these justify attempts we might best classify as propagandic.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By onelittleindian on 7/5/2008 11:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately it still fails, since the (music industry for example) still has control over what they do with their property
Nope, sorry. Control = being able to tell others what they can and can't do with it. If millions of people make free and download your song, you don't control it any more.

Stealing an album is like breaking into a vacant hotel room and spending the night without paying. You might not have cost the hotel any money, but you still stole their services.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By AndreasM on 7/6/2008 1:12:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Stealing an album is like breaking into a vacant hotel room and spending the night without paying. You might not have cost the hotel any money, but you still stole their services.


Except you did cost the hotel money in form of electricity, water and cleaning costs. There really is nothing comparable to copyright infringement in the real world, as it's akin to using a magic device to produce an identical copy of someone's property. Would you call such an act stealing also?


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mindless1 on 7/6/2008 11:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
No, that is controlling other people not the property.

If millions of people d/l the song, you can still do anything you want with it, you still have the option of selling a d/l or physical CD in a store.

With a hotel room, one person using it means another can't. There is nothing stopping people from going to a store and buying whatever they want.

I'm not saying "let's all go pirate", only that the overly simplified concept some present is wrong.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By psychobriggsy on 7/4/2008 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Downloading a copy of an album from a file share is theft.


It's half a theft.

The downloader hasn't deprived the owner of any property. They still have the original. However the downloader has gained the goods.

Has the property owner lost money? This is a complex issue, not helped by the music industry counting every download as a lost sale.

1) Some downloads actually lead to sales down the line.

2) Some downloads lead to a loss of a sale.

3) Some downloads do neither - the downloader hasn't got the money available to buy it anyway - think students especially. The music industry would be far better off providing very cheap all-you-can-download subscriptions to students that expire 3 months after they leave university. Never mind that there is a credit crunch going on, fuel and food prices are rising, and people will be cutting non-essentials like music and movies out of their shopping lists.

4) Many people consider music to be a commodity now, not the 'special' thing it was in the 60s, 70s and 80s. That means it isn't worth £16 an album to them. They download and wait for the sales, or buy specific tracks online.

5) The music industry drove bands to mass produce albums with 3 good songs on them and 7 dross songs, leading people to the download-try-before-you-buy method. Improve quality and sales will increase.

6) The music industry only looks after itself, and people know that bands get no money from the industry unless they're really big. Therefore they don't even feel guilty if they don't buy the music.

7) If the majority of people are doing something, then it doesn't make sense for it to be illegal, but instead it suggests that the business model is dead and the companies should adapt.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 4:39:47 PM , Rating: 1
Whilst I agree with much of what you way abut the music industry being out of touch and complacent (personally I can take it or leave it and it has gotten a little too big for it's boots and thinks it's far more important than it really is) I am going to play devils advocate a little.

re: half a theft:

I guess it comes down to whether you round that theft up or down.

If it was your album, you'd probably been keen to see it rounded up, if you download music for fun then you'd want it rounding down.

That's the tricky part of the whole debate really, but ultimately I think you have to some down on the "round up" to a theft side of things.

Sure, you can argue that you mite download a song "illegally" from a file share and then like it. Like it so much that you go and buy the album?

But really, who are you trying to kid? This mite happen very very rarely, but what really happens in the vast majority of cases is that you like the bands song so you put their name into The Pirate Bay search box, click search and download their entire back catalogue, assuming someone has been so kind as to upload it.

* For the most part, I think a lot of people download a lot of music and never get around to listening to much of it and download lots of stuff just because they can.

I do agree that the music industry needs to change it's attitude and business model.

iTunes (and the like) was a good start, allowing you to download just what you want at a reasonable price, but DRM is a real pain.

The 3 month unlimited download offer is another matter tho. I don't know what you do for a living, but I think few businesses could survive such a deal?

Ultimately, they operate in under the same rules as the rest of us. They put a price on something and if you want it, at that price, you buy it, else look wistfully at it through the window.

If no-one is buying at those prices, they need to reduce them, but it doesn't neceserally make it OK to take a copy of something just because you can and then say that they should change their prices because you have this power.

In saying that, I do think that it should be taken as a message (when so many people are doing it an legal sales are falling through the floor) that the industry has to change.

Much of the law suits and companies throwing their weight around seems to me to be a bit of an over reaction and perhaps shows the fear that the music industry now had.

I believe that the music industry realises that its time charging the ludicrous prices (as you point out £16 an album is silly) are over and they are trying to get every last penny whilst they can.

And they know that they have poisoned their own well in many ways as they have tightened their grip on creativity too much and many people are sick of the over manufactured, industry controlled clones that dominate the charts.

/rambling comment, I think I've lost what I was on about myself, I hope it makes sense???


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/5/2008 2:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
One last point I wanted to make.

If people think music is over priced, not buying it and downloading it for free doesn't really make much sense as a way to make this clear to the music industry.

All you are showing is that there is still a high demand for music (in-fact even higher than it really is, as when music is available for free people tend to down load anything and everything and listen to only a percentage of it), so the price sill remain high and the old "we have to cover the losses due to piracy" argument will be used too and added to the retail price.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By mindless1 on 7/5/2008 11:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
You would be showing them there isn't a demand at the price set, that even though they are pursuing people do do it, the people are choosing that instead of paying the set price.

That's doubly reinforcing the idea that people think the music is overpriced. If everyone just refrained from buying it and illegally sharing it, the industry would instead think the public is not interested in the content and that they should look at what music the public is listening to instead, that it was lack of demand for products carried, not perceived value that was the problem.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Solandri on 7/5/2008 3:01:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
re: half a theft:

I guess it comes down to whether you round that theft up or down.

It's implicitly rounded down. Duplication of physical objects requires resources (materials, energy, time). The cost of these resources is what prevents everyone from having a computer on their desk, a 90" flat screen TV, a rolls royce in their garage, a private jet at the airport. If physical objects could be duplicated at zero cost, the increase to the world's standard of living and widespread benefit would be staggering.

Information (data, knowledge, software, media like music and movies) is already at this point - it can be duplicated for essentially zero cost. Its natural state is to be freely distributed, and society derives the most benefit from it when it is distributed as widely as possible. However, the incentive to create new information mostly vanishes if the creator is not rewarded in some way. So the law allows for partial control of distribution for limited times in order to preserve this incentive.

Unfortunately, the media companies want complete control of distribution for all time. This is, quite frankly, insane, as it eliminates the entire benefit that zero cost of duplication offers to society, and instead channels it entirely into profits for the media companies.

I'm a supporter of copyright and patents (I write software and take photos for a living). But I don't for a minute believe that the burden should be on society to prove why copyright should be limited. The burden should always be on the information producers to show why strengthened copyright and improved copyright enforcement can benefit society. I'm doubtful that any argument for criminalizing the majority of the population or cutting off people's broadband connections could ever be spun as a benefit for society. So in the lack of a compelling argument, you have to round the half theft down.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By sporr on 7/5/2008 10:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
psychobriggsy +6


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Polynikes on 7/5/2008 11:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By TSS on 7/4/2008 11:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
what they want is money, lots of it.

i made a very long post but something went wrong with the comment system, so i'll just put my best example up. Call of duty 4.

yes this great game can be bought here for 57,99 euro's. lets do a little conversion shall we?

57,99 euro's = 91 USD = 127 guilders (old dutch unit). 6 years back when the euro was introduced the most expensive games cost 100 guilders = 45 euro's. see the increase?

now the good part: CoD4 costs 50 USD on bestbuy.com.

there is no way, no way in hell that you can explain to me a 92% price difference for a piece of software. even if the dollar would stabilize to a 1:1 ratio with the euro, i'm still paying 8 dollars more. not for something solid but for the copyright.

why hasn't this been equalized? why haven't prices dropped a bit to compensate? because their greedy SOB's. and less piracy = more money as far as they are concirned. so excuse me for not caring wether they live or die, they seem to have the same attitute towards me (just the way the world works).


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By TSS on 7/4/2008 11:30:28 AM , Rating: 2
mistype there, ment 82%. DT, edit button please!


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 11:56:03 AM , Rating: 3
Is that price including tax?

They're usually much higher in the EU and often not quoted on US prices as different states have different rates.*

Also, (typically) everything costs more in the EU, so it adds on itself.

From the person who orders the game for the store, the shipping, the guy who unloads it from the ship, puts it on a lorry, fuel for the lorry, drives it to the store, puts it on the shelf, manages the store, utilities for the store, pay for the guy at the checkout of the store....

They are normally all more expensive than in the US and it all has to be paid for by someone, and that someone is you (and me) when we buy the game.

In saying all of that, I do think that there are extra margins taken at pretty much every opportunity when available.

Also, I think everyone got royally ripped off when the Euro came in, I doubt that many prices got rounded down when prices were converted and nearly all went up to the nearest €5, €10.

* I assume that's the reason why?


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Rebel44 on 7/4/2008 6:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong - same situation is with digital distribution services and almost everything else.

Some games from Steam (and other services) are mot even available for users outside North America or they are available for much higher price (not including taxes).

Price for distribution are same for both users in USA and EU so why should I pay 30-50% more for same thing??? (+ taxes) I should also add that we dont have anything extra for our money - not even translated versions of those games.

Another example is HW - cheapest Radeon 4850 I can buy is 250+ $$ and nVidia 280GTX is 800 $$.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Aloonatic on 7/5/2008 3:06:19 AM , Rating: 3
I am not wrong, my points above are correct, but it doesn't mean that it's the whole story of course, and if you read it carefully you'll note that I still think that liberties are taken and a little extra money seems to be being charged.

I'm just trying to point out where some of the price differences come from.

You also need to take into account marketing and such in that long list (I'm not saying that that covers 30% increases by the way) and other unseen costs that are still relevant to downloaded content.

I don't think it's as simple as someone at Steam headquarters plugging a gold cable into a router marked EU, rubbing their hands together and saying quick, add 50% to the EU price on the system, it's all ready to go. *sound of champagne glasses clinking in the background*

Import taxes are often levied on goods that are manufactured outside of your economic region too. The EU, US and China are constantly playing games with these tariffs and quotas.

Then, when converting currencies a little padding is added to make sure that they don't lose money should anything crazy happen in the market as they don't (quite reasonably) want to be changing their prices 3 or 4 times a day.

Ultimately however, in economics101 we all learn that something costs whatever people are willing to pay for it.

You'll probably find that you are paying much less that people in other regions too, and other products and services are cheaper here than in he US.

For example, the EU we tend to get much better deals on mobile phones and contracts for them.

Pricing and calculating costs is not as simple as it first appears and is a rather complicated business.

In saying all that (to repeat my point) I do think that we get a little ripped off in the EU.

Maybe if we had a home grown player in the markets (CPU, GPD and OS), things mite be different?


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By TSS on 7/5/2008 7:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
i know where beeing taxed like crazy (especially holland.. we pay around 11 USD a gallon of petrol these days), but then still.

wether they want money, or our goverments want more, or the middlepeople here just charge extra, the result is the same: we pay alot more. the problem is: what is there to do about it?

we could elect a new goverment, however next elections aren't untill 2 more years, atleast here. and those always get screwed over by those frickin sheep following what they've voted for the last 40 years (the result: alot more taxes!).

we could protest, which hasn't accomplished squat in the past few years. or we can opt to not buy anything, have the company's lose money and the goverment with it, so they'll start wondering what's going wrong. that just takes a lot longer then i expected.


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By Frallan on 7/5/2008 6:06:56 AM , Rating: 2
To late...

The box has been opened it wont close again. In Sweden there are over 1 million active file sharers - and probably twice that that are not active all the time. thats 3 mio ppl or 30%. And the number of ppl reaping the advantage is a lot more. Id say 60-70% since they are parents, friends or other relatives of filesharers.

There is no way U can use negative feedback to change the way over 50% of the population bahave and make it stick. The only thing that will happen is a gradual deterioration in relation with the public until U are an outcast if you try it.

Nope the only way of scavanging someting out of this for the companies is to adhere to the old proverb - If you cant beat'em Join'em... I don't know how this is to be done but its the only way forward.

And before I get flamed I am going to state that I pay for both software and music that I kep and enjoy. Yes I try it out beforehand in a pirated version but if its a keeper I pay for it. My standpoint is that I am entitled to try things before paying (unless it is consumables and then I often get a nibble to taste wheather I like it or not) and if the companies don't like that - well I have a shiny metal part of my body they are allowed to break their teth on.

Nowdays Im on an encrypted P2P - and I say GL decrypting my 4096 bits random encoding :0)


RE: In a way I'm glad....
By leexgx on 7/6/2008 12:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
i on Virgin as well as Virgin own all of the cable in the UK its not an good idea to disconnect users internet as once thay go from cable thay never see that customer agane (thay just stop the direct debits and not pay the next bill and get Sky tv and an BT line based bradband provider)


Of course they will not disconnect.
By dark matter on 7/6/2008 4:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
Virign, previously NTL and Telewest, suffer from severe problems with illegal cable tv boxs and cloned modems. Skys satellite boxs, who is the main rival, are a lot harder to hack than Virgins.

Virgin send out ALL the channels on the cable, the box itself decrypts it. However the box has a weak encryption service and is easily hacked. I know of several people who have Virgin boxes that have been hacked. You can also buy euro boxes (quite legally) that can decrypt the signal (illegally), and updates are to be found on the web.

I also know of several people who have cloned cable modems. Thus receiving free broadband. Virgin own and provide the cable modems. They allow access based on the MAC address of the modem. Therefore with a simple hack you can have two cable modems with the same MAC that are allowed onto Virgins network. The 2nd modem (or 3rd, or 4th) will continue to receive broadband as long as the customer with the original box is still paying for their broadband. (and yes, their network is unable to check for this kind of abuse - beleive it or not)

Virgin are well aware of this problem. Phone their CEO and ask him, or if you live in the uk, request details about under the freedom of information act.

If I were a Virgin media customer and I knew that I did not download illegal material and I had no wireless router than I would be actively pursueing this line of defense. The BPI could have found an IP address downloading illegal material, but Virgin media doesn't know the customer from the IP address. So it will match that IP address to the MAC address of the modem. Then it will give the BPI my name and address, despite it not being anything to do with me. I would challenge Virgin and the BPI to prove that my modem has not been cloned, and then sue them for negligence and harrasment.

Their network is not secure, and so any conviction would be flawed. It is hardly likely they could deny the existance of cloned modems and hacked boxes in a court case. They would then have to prove that your box has not been cloned.
(and if they can do that, they would not have the problem with cloned boxes and hacked cable boxes)




RE: Of course they will not disconnect.
By Aloonatic on 7/6/2008 5:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'm interested in this free and legally vague enough broadband that you are offering.

Ignore everything I've written before.

Free content downloaded on a free broadband service where the police and Richard Branson will be knocking on someone else's door for downloading way too much is the ultimate pirate vessel.

Now, where's my eye patch and wooden leg?


RE: Of course they will not disconnect.
By dark matter on 7/6/2008 8:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but their billing system (SABS) is atrocious.

I have witnessed first hand phantom boxs. Where customers have been billed for boxes they don't have. I have witnessed first hand customers that have had no billing for their phone calls, as well as customers being charged for other peoples phone calls.

Then you have customers being double billed for their equipment. I myself was not charged for broadband for over 12 months, despite me phoning up to inform them. I know of customers who have been charged for broadband despite them cancelling and being disconnected. I also know of customers whose accounts were cancelled and disconnected but still were receiving their services!

I also know for a fact that my NTL email address is still registered to a previous address that should have been disconnected years ago.

All in all, if I were at the receiving end of one of those letters I would certainly raise these issues in court. I wouldn't challenge the BPI or the fact they claim they have monitored a specific IP addres sharing copyright material. But I certainly would question the reliability that Virgin claim it was me who was responsible. Their systems are just not reliable enough, its not as though you couldn't get the evidence to support this.


RE: Of course they will not disconnect.
By Lerianis on 7/8/2008 4:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
IP address are very easy to be faked today. For all the stuff that they say that "IP addresses cannot be faked! NYAH!", it is quite easy to fake one.

The teacher at college who taught the A+ and Networking classes showed us how it was extremely easy to obfuscate IP addresses or break into wireless routers by doing it in front of us, EVEN WHEN THE WIRELESS ROUTER WAS USING AN ENCRYPTION KEY.


By Aloonatic on 7/8/2008 9:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
I guess, at the end of the day, they just use the IP address records as a reason (or just cause or reasonable grounds or whatever it's called) to knock on your door and take you PC and anything else that takes their fancy away to their bat cave and see what you have on there.

You can argue that some record is not your IP address or MAC all you like, but if their investigation digs up all sorts of media on there they seem to get away with a presumption of theft/breach of copy right (whatever) and you have to prove your innocence.


By rdeegvainl on 7/8/2008 9:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
What type of encryption was it? Probably WEP right. Still, there is almost always someone in every neighborhood that has unencrypted wireless. The saying, "you don't have to outrun the bear, just the person next to you," comes to mind.


Theft
By coversyl on 7/4/2008 2:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
Copyright violation is not theft, it is not even a criminal action

Copyright violation is a civil matter.




RE: Theft
By Heyga4Huk on 7/5/2008 5:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
I agree wholeheartedly with that.

Downloading pirated software and music should be an infraction at best and we should not see some people's lives ruined by downloading and sharing a few music tracks.. Are major artists' lives ruined because of arguably less $$ in their pockets?


RE: Theft
By Aloonatic on 7/5/2008 6:09:48 AM , Rating: 2
I understand the argument you're making, but would your life be ruined if I was to work into your place of business and just take whatever you produce?

On a small scale, probably not.

If everyone was to, then it would.

I'm not sure that the "it's not hurting Britney Spears' Bank Balance" argument is really valid.

You can try to justify it however you want, but it is still wrong.

*In the voice of someone who should have had their adenoids removed, with a smug grin* "Ahhh, actually, I think you'll find that it is a civil offence, not a criminal one"

At the end of the day you are still in possession of something that you should have paid for but have not.

The problem that the industry has is that more and more people are using file shares, especially (faster) torrent sites, and downloading pirated software, music and increasingly films too, at levels never seen before as broadband speeds improve.

Personally, I think "entertainers" need to re-evaluate their worth.

I'm not sure why someone thinks that they should be a millionaire because they written a couple of catchy songs?

Or because they can stand in a certain place on a film set and read out a few memorised lines without giggling.

On the other hand, operating Systems and video games (for the most part) I think offer pretty good value for money, especially when compared to the music and film industries.

But these still get downloaded and smaller games houses are the first to feel the effects, contributing the likely hood that they will get bought out by larger companies, such as the much loved EA, and then we all feel the effects when innovation and new ideas are sacrificed as bean counters take control of the budgets.


RE: Theft
By Solandri on 7/5/2008 3:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure that the "it's not hurting Britney Spears' Bank Balance" argument is really valid.

The "It's hurting Britney Spears' bank balance" argument isn't really valid either.

There are two costs incurred in any manufacturing process. The cost of the R&D, and the cost of the manufacturing and distribution. For music, the R&D costs are the songwriting, the recording, the training, editing, etc. The manufacturing and distribution costs are (for digital media) zero.

For any healthy economy, people get paid for the costs they incur, plus a little extra for their contribution. So Britney deserves to get paid for producing the music, plus a little extra. But since the manufacturing and distribution costs are near zero, they don't deserve to make much if any money on it.

Unfortunately, for music and movies, the manufacturing and distribution steps used to have high costs (made higher by industry collusion, but I digress). As such, they built their entire business model around exploiting that high cost for profit. As technology reduced manufacturing and distribution costs, rather than adapt their business model (by cutting media prices to reflect the lower costs), they exploited it to increase their profit by gouging customers. They shifted more of their revenue towards manufacturing and distribution, and away from production of the music itself.

Now suddenly computers and the Internet reduce those costs to zero, basically dropping a nuke on their business model by taking control of manufacturing and distribution away from them.

The proper balance point (IMHO) is for music and movie producers to be paid for the performances they do. That's pretty much what photographers have done. It used to be wedding photographers would shoot your wedding for free, but charged you for the prints. Now they charge you to shoot your wedding, but give you prints or a CD for free or nominal cost. The era of the blockbuster as a quick way to get rich is going to be over soon. If you do manage to produce a hit song or movie, the benefit you derive from it will be increased name recognition to get you more gigs or financial support for your next song or movie.

Economics dictates that what you're paid for something will be driven over time closer to what it costs you. For music and movies, the distribution cost is zero. Arguing that you should be paid for something that costs you nothing is essentially saying that society should pay you for doing nothing. It ain't gonna happen. So the fact that Britney's bank account is as fat as it is is an transient accident of circumstance in how the industry developed, disproportionate to the real value of the goods sold and costs incurred.

Yes I should have paid her for the album (hypothetically speaking since I don't listen to her music). But the amount I paid for that album should reflect her cost to manufacture and distribute that album once her production costs were recouped.


RE: Theft
By Aloonatic on 7/6/2008 4:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with pretty much everything you say, the industry needs to change, and I think it is.

Who would have thought that iTunes would have been around and individual songs from pretty well any artist could legally be yours (kind of, with the whole DRM nonsense) for a few pence each 10 years ago, when Napster was all the rage?

Ultimately, no matter how rich someone is, and whether you think they are deserving of that wealth, there is no reason why they should be deprived of income that is legally theirs. Even though they do not need it and it will probably be used on a crazily expensive hand bag to hold a stupid little dog in.

Thinking that it wont hurt Britney and other wealthy "artists" does make it easy to "steel" from them however, which is probably why people think like this.

As far as how much money it costs to make and distribute an album. The majority of the money you pay will be going into the pockets of the record executives and middle men, who are the people who really need to change their behaviour and opinion of how much they are worth.

Sadly, it seems that their job now is not to assist music makers and producers to market, but maintain the high prices that are not justified, as you point out as making music and distribute it is getting cheaper and cheaper.

Of course, they are the ones who invested in these systems and they should be able to retain a little extra for this as there needs to be some incentive for them to reduce costs.

Competition should be this driving factor (as it is in most industries), but because of the nature of the "creative" market (no matter how much money a record company invests, they will never invent their own Beatles or Rolling Stones) this competition is a hit and miss affair.

The good news is, with the internet the days of the record company are numbered anyway, so all this is probably moot.

The Radio Head business model of "pay what you think it's worth" is (at present) only workable when you're already pretty wealthy and have a few industry back albums behind you, but I think something similar could work for new artists in the future, but only when the public are confident that what hey pay will be going to the band/artist and not some slick music lawyer and market morons and....


I think i should add a little something in here
By SiN on 7/4/2008 10:00:59 AM , Rating: 2
This only seems to be the case after it was confirmed that other ISPs would not follow suit, nor did they beleive that they had any role in "ratting" out what people do with their conections. ISPs such as Talk Talk. Obviously after one ISP tells the public it will not have anything to do with anti piracy, a lot of people who pirate decide Talk Talk have a better service than Virgin Media.

My opinion on the matter is it would increase costs if you also monitor what your client base does 24/7. Also i beleive the BPI baits the people who have been found out downloading copyright material. That is they put copyrighted material out there for the masses hopeing they get a bite.

Think we have to remember Virgin Media started out as Virgin Records through Richard Branson selling music. So Virgin looses out on theoreticle sales to piracy.




By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 10:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
Good point on the Virgin Media origins, I had forgotten all about that :)

BT had a (rather PR disastrous) stab at monitoring it's users browsing habits not so long ago, in order to use the data to target adverts, apparently.

All without telling their customers that they were doing it too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7325451.stm

Other's including Virgin and talk talk signed up as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7280791.stm

So it seems that monitoring users browsing habits is a potential money making exercise, not a cost?

The entrapment/bating angle is an interesting one. I thought that I had heard (basically, I'm not sure) that they released fake files into the system for people to waste their time and download/traffic limits on, perhaps gathering IP addresses as they go?

The thing is, many of these systems (from bt to youtube) which are constantly being attacked by media corps can actually be used by them and help out their businesses too.

For example:

I watched some clips of contestants from "Britain's Got Talent" on youtube as I heard people in the office talking about what they had seen on the show the night before.

I ended up watching the next show to see how those contestants did, and subsequent shows up until the final.

I almost certainly never would have tuned in if I didn't know what people were one about.


By dark matter on 7/6/2008 8:53:12 AM , Rating: 2
Richard Branson sold off Virgin records many years ago to get the funding to start his airline.

He has not had any links to Virgin records in years.


Evidence.
By dark matter on 7/6/2008 9:06:01 AM , Rating: 2
Has anyone ever requested the alleged material they claim you have distributed from these companies? Surely they can only sue you for copyright infringement if they have a complete file that they can produce as evidence in court.

How can they prove that this evidence has not been tampered with in anyone. Are we to just take their word that it is copyright material?

Another question would be exactly how much would the BPI and RIAA have to download from you to be classed as copyright infringement. 10kb? 1Mb? The whole file? I think we need answers to this. Do the RIAA and BPI keep each indivual peers seperate, or do they just log your IP address.

No-one seems to asking these kinds of questions regarding the validity of the claims that these companies are making. I realise the burden of proof is on the defendent in civil cases, but surely getting answers to these questions are vital to obtaining this proof.




RE: Evidence.
By Lerianis on 7/8/2008 4:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
You bring up some very good points about how these people can prove that you have 'distributed' something: someone could make a very good argument that say, they ripped a file with Windows Media Player and it only APPEARS to be the same as the file that was distributed 'illegally' because WMP always compresses a certain song the same way off the same CD.

They also cannot really prove that someone has distributed something illegally unless they download that file THEMSELVES, which in most states, if I am thinking right, if you facilitate a crime (help a person rob your business, help a person physically injure you) you are not allowed to sue that person for that crime that they committed, in either civil or criminal court.

The main reason that people aren't asking these questions is because they are either too stupid to ask them when they are sued or..... well, basically that is the only explanation I can think of.


How they get your IP is illegal most times
By dididave on 7/7/2008 12:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
How they get your IP is to join onto a torrent as a normal peer if the download is torrent based and tag each and every IP from the given peer list.

However this information is deemed to be Confidential Information on some sites and operate a Confidentiality Agreement which all users must agree to before joining or using said .torrent files.

Sites that operate a Non-Disclosure / Confidentiality Agreement do so using common Law which means the Moles that are hired to do the dirty work for the MP@@ and BPI are in fact breaking a real law themselfs and as so any data gained this way should be thrown out of court.

quote:

Quote from law...
If a 3rd party keeps a list of all IP's they gain via there visit to a website without permission he breachs clause of confidentiality and makes an infringement.
Confidential Information shall mean all information identified by a party (Disclosing Party) to the other party (Receiving Party) which if in writing labelled as confidential.
Confidential Information shall remain the sole property of the Disclosing Party. Except for the specific rights granted by this agreement the Receiving Party shall not use any Confidential Information of Disclosing Party for its own account.
Receiving Party shall use reasonable care to protect Disclosing Party's Confidential Information.
Receiving Party shall not disclose Confidential Information to any third party without the written consent of Disclosing Party (except to consultants who are bound by a written agreement with Receiving Party to maintain confidentiality).
Confidential Information shall exclude information
(i) available to the public other than by a breach of this Agreement
(ii) rightfully received from a third party not in breach of an obligation of confidentiality.


http://www.bitlaw.com/forms/nda.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreem...




By Lerianis on 7/8/2008 4:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
You bring up something that I thought of a long time ago: it is a KNOWN FACT that it is illegal to monitor someone online without their permission unless you are the police, FBI, etc. (a government-run investigatory organization) or to disclose information about them without their permission in most states and at the federal level, I believe.

I don't understand how these organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are getting away with this BS.... it just seems that either people are not smart enough to realize that these organizations are doing something illegal, or there is something here that both you and I are missing.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki