backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 83 comment(s) - last by Polynikes.. on Jul 30 at 9:48 AM

While the country turns down “three strikes,” new agreement will still make UK pirates very uncomfortable

Are you a media pirate? Do you live in the United Kingdom?

If so, be prepared for the deluge of warning letters that will soon be sent your way, followed by possible sanctions – like internet monitoring, speed caps, and blacklisting – from your ISP if you fail to comply.

Widespread opposition to France’s “three-strikes and you’re out” approach to curbing internet piracy – which sees pirates disconnected from the net for a year if caught three times – led UK record labels to request a new kind of remedy, brokered between the country’s six top ISPs and Ofcom, the UK telecommunications authority.

The deal manifests as a memorandum of understanding between the UK music industry association BPI, and ISPs Carphone Warehouse, BT, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali, and BSkyB. (A press release posted by at the BPI’s website indicates that the MPAA signed on as well.) Under the MOU’s terms, “hundreds of thousands” of strongly-worded letters will be sent out to suspected internet pirates – giving them a chance to change their ways before more severe punishments set in.

As for the punishments themselves, the specifics are still being worked out. It does not appear that pirates will face legal trouble should they keep getting caught; rather, many speculate that ISPs will degrade service for a set period time – like the aforementioned speed caps – for repeat offenders. Ofcom will facilitate these negotiations, but by and large the UK government promised to stand aside – provided an agreement can be reached. If not, it stands ready to enact additional legislation.

The BPI’s enforcement arm will handle the process of discovering music pirates; ISPs will be tasked with forwarding letters from the BPI and implementing sanctions when necessary. Many worried that ISPs would turn their spying capacity – previously demonstrated in a variety of clandestine advertising experiments – against customers; as luck would have it, this will not be the case.

Critics have raised a variety of concerns over the scheme. What happens when the offender is the child in a household? What happens in cases of computers controlled by hackers or botnets? What happens when the “pirate” is making fair use of the copyright materials he downloads?

Their questions, thus far, remain unanswered amidst the MOU’s “vague” wording.

“This MOU represents a significant step forward, in that all ISPs now recognise their responsibility to help deal with illegal filesharing,” said BPI Chief Executive Geoff Taylor. “Government has played an important role in bringing all parties together to arrive at this point, but the work really begins now. We look forward to creating the procedures necessary to effectively tackle repeated unlawful filesharing with the other signatories and Ofcom.”



Comments     Threshold


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

Doesn't surpize me
By Cogman on 7/25/2008 9:52:18 AM , Rating: 5
I lived in the UK for a couple of years and one of the things I noticed was the governments "Scare them straight" attitude. I didn't have a TV in my apartment nor did I want one, yet every week I would get "You haven't payed your TV tax, if you are found with a tv it will be an X amount Fine." or "Our police have special devices that can detect TVs and we suspect you of having one, pay up" ect. Which was all a bunch of crap BTW but since people don't know the difference that seems a good enough reason for them to pay up (Seriously, you don't have to pay TV tax if you don't receive television broadcasts, IE you use your tv a video player only. So how on earth would they detect and indoor aerial?)

But it doesn't stop their, every bus you get on, ever street you walk down, every mall you shop in. you are greeted with "CCTV cameras operating in this area" on buses you got random statistics about crimes solved by CCTV ect. I even heard one bus drive that was treating someone to get off the bus say "we can take DNA evidence from you and track you down if you persist." (yeah, thats a bunch of crap as well since they have no DNA database and no way of knowing if that is his DNA or someone else's...)

My point is, Fellow AT be ready, even if you don't download anything illegal it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if you started getting bombarded with letters about how piracy is illegal and if you are caught your internet will be terminated. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they use this as a bandwidth control method (They sent out x MB they must be pirating, we'll put a stop to that)




RE: Doesn't surpize me
By arazok on 7/25/2008 10:18:34 AM , Rating: 5
Everything I ever hear about Brittan reinforces by belief that I am fortunate not the live there.

My neighbor is a Brit. A few years ago he came to Canada for a month’s vacation visiting relatives. He was so astounded at the difference in living standards that he up and moved here. I’ll never forget how he described the differences…In N.America, if you are willing to work for it, you can have anything you want. In Brittan, no matter how hard you try, you can never get ahead.

Having spent 2 weeks vacationing there, I could see that he was absolutely right.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By kelmon on 7/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2008 10:56:40 AM , Rating: 5
Truth is probably somewhere between the 2.

Taxes are too high here, mostly to cover Brown's socialist redistribution of wealth scheme.

The class system is still alive and kicking in many respects, and who you know is still more important than what you know. More so than in most nations, as far as I can see and from what I've heard from other people.

A friend of mine moved out to the states and his career has flourished in 6 months over there, compared to stagnating over here as a lot of graduates seem to, getting no where in years of trying. He's know fool, nor lazy but I guess you'll have to take my word for that.

What you can do seems to be much more important than your accent, your background and an uncanny ability to spout as much BS as possible, though that is probably a universal constant across the world, but seems to be especially advantageous over here from what I have experienced when dealing with people from across the globe in my day to day work.

Personally, I'm waiting for my gf to graduate and then we're outta here, probably Canada bound.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By robinthakur on 7/25/2008 11:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He's know fool


Oops. What you know will always be significantly less important than who you know within certain industries (like finance) because that's the way they have always worked. This is immaterial of where in the world you work. The rewards are here for you in Socialist Britain (under Brown) its just that you get taxed to death for it and have punitive additional taxes and fines to convince you to do what the government wants you to do. i.e. fuel tax, recycling charges, Home Efficiency taxes, congestion charge, TV license. I think I actually just convinced myself to emmigrate lol! On the other hand, I find the UK a far more tolerant society.(maybe too tolerant in its 'multi-culturalism')


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2008 12:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
re: who you know, not what you know.

Sure, it exists everywhere but like taxation, it seems to be much worse here.

I think that we accept the "things have always been like that" argument a little to readily in the UK too, and are indoctrinated into a class system (know your place) pretty early.

There's much less of a "you can be whatever you want to be" way or raising kids in the UK, or (more bluntly) there is no British version of "the American dream".

The obstacles to being "all you can be" seem to be smaller in other nations from what I have heard from my friends and family who have travelled and lived abroad but not everyone reports the same.

If you want to be a single mother living off the state, America is not somewhere you want to live, so it doesn't work for everyone.

Of course, the rewards are there. It's just they are made harder to reach and random chance or other factors other than your abilities and willingness to work hard, seem to be much more important.

I'm doing OK for my self by the way, in case you think I'm embittered. I just realise that the UK is perhaps not the best place for my children to grow up in and has fewer opportunities but there certainly are worse places to be.

*before the inhabitant of pedants corner wake up I am aware that I used the wrong spelling for whether in another post by the way*


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Adonlude on 7/25/2008 12:48:10 PM , Rating: 5
The people/subjects have less and less power in the UK. Their people were stripped of their firearms long ago. There are now even 1,043 different ways the government can enter your home in the UK... your own sacred home!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036561/No...


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By jabber on 7/25/2008 5:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Stripped of what firearms? We never had any in the first place!

Before handguns were outlawed in the mid 90's I didnt know anyone that owned a Colt/S&W/Uzi/AK47/Ruger etc. etc.

A few rural folks had shotguns and air rifles and they still have them. As for the majority..nothing.

Once again I will dispell this myth that we Brits gave up our firearms. We didnt, we never had them. Most of the firearms (a very small minority) were collectors or gun club members.

However, we now have shed loads of illegal ones kicking about so we now actually have more firearms then we ever had before. Cheap and no 72 hour checks. How easy is that?

And as for the bit about the TV license tax, it still applies if you 'only' use you TV for playing videos. The License applies to ANY device with a TV tuner circuit in it. That includes a video recorder. Oh and by the way it pays for part of the running of the BBC so at least its a tax that provides something of slight value.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 6:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
So the miscreants who laugh at the law will be the only people with guns in a gun free zone. Sounds like a ripe situation for dictators taking over.

Opps....they already have


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Adonlude on 7/28/2008 4:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Such is the effect of gun control. How is it that politicians can see law breakers with guns and say "hey, we should pass some laws to keep those law breakers from getting guns!". Hello! "law-BREAKER"... Criminal. Not following law happens to be their specialty and you hope to fight them with a new law? Now you have law abiding citizens who do follow your laws nicely disarmed making easier targets for the law breakers. Pure stupidity!


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By cmdrdredd on 7/26/2008 8:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh and by the way it pays for part of the running of the BBC so at least its a tax that provides something of slight value.
'

Except that from a personal standpoint I find the BBC just as bad as any of the major news networks in the US that put spin on something.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By jabber on 7/27/2008 8:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh but at least they put news about issues outside of their own country on. If thats 'an angle' then I'll settle for that.

That may be the problem for us Brits, we have such a downer on life cos we now so much about whats going on all over the world and how depressing it all is.

Damn you BBC and your world centric atitude!!!!


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By afkrotch on 7/28/2008 2:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And as for the bit about the TV license tax, it still applies if you 'only' use you TV for playing videos. The License applies to ANY device with a TV tuner circuit in it. That includes a video recorder. Oh and by the way it pays for part of the running of the BBC so at least its a tax that provides something of slight value.


Any device with a tv tuner, whether you turn it on or off. If it's in your house, in the attic, collecting dust. BAM! TV tax.

In the US, we get CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, and some other stations for free. It's called advertising. It pays for them to air and it pays for them to create shows some great shows (Heroes, CSI, etc). What has BBC or TV tax done?


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/28/2008 5:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
To defend the BBC for a moment.

That you have becomes accustomed to advertising every 5 minutes in your shows is great, but I must say I find it more than a little irritating when visiting the States. Mostly because I have become accustomed to watching programs on the BBC (ITV really is mostly rubbish, X-Factor/Britain's got talent and the like) without advertising so maybe I have been conditioned quite nicely too?

The BBC has produced some good shows (who could imagine life without the Teletubbies?) but their remit is as a public service broadcaster to provide challenging (most current affairs programs worth watching are on the BBC or CH4 who also receive some states funding too but ruin it all by continuing with the Big Brother nonsense programming to keep the pay masters happy) and interesting/educational (Blue Planet) programming and not chase ratings or make the big "hit" shows like Heroes*.

I must admit, most of the entertainment programming I watch (Battlestar) is from the states however but then I don't watch much other than news and sport, oh and Top Gear of course. "Life on Mars" was a pretty good show and worth watching if you want some BBC entertainment/drama.

The licence fee also goes towards the BBC radio stations which are pretty good, then there's the on-line services and websites (which are very good and a massive resource) and has also been used to fund and promote the digital change over, which is on-going.

It's a shame that the BBC is (to me at least) about as liberal and lefty as it seems that Fox News is to the right of political spectrum.

The only "free" programming comes via ITV and that is mostly dumbed down rubbish meant to keep those on Brown tax credits and handouts off the streets and happy, whilst giving them the opportunity to see them selves on TV on the many talk shows where they go on to make fools of themselves.

* A show that really should have stopped after 1 season. I watched the abortion that was season 2 mostly because I couldn't look away, like when driving past a road crash.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By JNo on 7/25/2008 6:46:15 PM , Rating: 1
You're quoting a daily mail article and you expect credibility? I can only hope it is US readers who don't know any better who have voted you up...


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By deadrats on 7/26/2008 1:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The people/subjects have less and less power in the UK. Their people were stripped of their firearms long ago. There are now even 1,043 different ways the government can enter your home in the UK... your own sacred home!


i have been following everything that has been said till now and read through the link you provided and i have to ask:

how the hell did england become like that? how is it the people haven't taken to the streets in non-stop riots?

i always thought england was a democracy. a tv tax?!? 1043 laws allowing the government to invade your home?!?

i'm suprised you don't see mass migrations out of that hell hole.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By jabber on 7/27/2008 8:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well why dont you find out for yourself?

Buy yourself a passport, buy a ticket and venture out of your state for the first time and come visit.

Then you'll find out that its not a Nazi/KGB state and life goes on pretty much as it does anywhere else.

No? Cant be bothered to see how other cultures live? Scared maybe that terrorists will get you?

You dont think that Homeland Security/FBI/ATF havent a whole arsenal of ways to barge into your home? I bet their options have increased ten fold since 2001.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By afkrotch on 7/28/2008 2:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty much what jabber said. Not like ppl were breaking into my house in Burwell, Cambridgeshire on a daily basis. I had a multisystem TV and had my PS2 connected to it. It was capable of picking up aired tv stations. I lied the one time, some tv enforcement officer or whatever they're called came over. I was left alone and I hated my neighbors (bunch of old ppl who were pissed that I could afford to live in their neighborhood).

As for the US, Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Government agency is going to provide quite a bit of evidence to obtain a warrant to enter your home.

At least I know they won't break into my home and take my fridge, cause it's not at it's intended energy rating.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Adonlude on 7/28/2008 4:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least I know they won't break into my home and take my fridge, cause it's not at it's intended energy rating.


Good, you took care of responding to this guy for me. I was going to add as well: At least they can't come into my home to make sure my potted plants had proper passports... haha.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By xzc145 on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2008 12:19:00 PM , Rating: 3
We pay plenty of tax, that there are worse places (such as France perhaps) doesn't make it OK?

Taxes can be very high and that would be fine if what you got in return was value for money.

I don't mean the NHS by the way, how is that redistributing wealth?

The NHS is generally a good thing, but it is annoying that we have to pay for it, and a state pension (for what that's worth unless you opt out, which many people do but not enough who should) and then have to pay privately for medical treatment if you want it in a timely manner and a worthwhile pension scheme as the pittance you get from the states is means tested and only given to those who really cannot be bothered.

What I did mean was the tax credit system, and the benefits that are paid out to the sick (I'm sure some really are sick and incapable of working, but not 2.4M people) and single mothers that do very well here etc etc.

as per your request:

My friend has a 2:1 in computing from a red brick university in the UK. He's pretty clever chap (got as at A-level in physics and computing back in the 90s before they started to give them away, like they do now) and is by no means lazy.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By jabber on 7/25/2008 5:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with folks (especially graduates) not being able to get on in the UK is that......

There are too many graduates. So many now go onto university and get middling degrees in such 'useful' subjects as media studies and psychology that they are most in parts useless in the workplace. We had a computer science graduate come in a few weeks ago and he knew very little that was actually useful in the workplace.

When everyone has a degree they become next to worthless. thats why its now best to learn a real trade. But that means getting your hands dirty I guess.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/26/2008 6:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
I may be wrong but I think that many countries have a higher percentage of people leaving full time education with a degree level education than here in the UK.

Tony Blair has spent the last 10 years trying to increase the numbers and yet we are still way behind the USA.

The main problem is that there just aren't enough jobs here for people with a degree level education.

Another problem that all UK employees face is the attitude that many employers have here towards them, compared to the USA for example.

In the UK employees are seen a cost. You should be able to come into the workplace and hit the ground running, making money for the nice man who was kind enough ti give you a job.

In other countries, employees are seen as an investment and they will take the time to train and grow the skill sets of the employee, which benefits both parties but it takes a bit more to to see a return on that investment.

Sadly, the UK model is still routed in the cotton mill mentality where people are seen as a unit of labour and there to make money or get out the door right now, all rather Dickensian.

Many graduates end up emigrating, as my friend did and the numbers are only getting larger.

There's little to keep them here with a high cost of living, relatively low wages, rapidly disappearing freedoms and a (once great and much needed) press that is utterly useless unable to find it place in the new information age order.

*Apologies for the standard of writing in my previous comment. I was being turfed out of the office at the time as my boss wanted to go home and I was the last one at their desk, so didn't have time to read it through. I hope it made some kind of sense?


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 6:44:38 PM , Rating: 1
Duh...hope your friend is better at math than you. Who for the love of god do you think always pays for NHS ???? ... whether you get a direct bill or it takes a lap around the economy first in the form of elevated prices YOU always pay ....YOU YOU YOU.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/26/2008 6:37:07 AM , Rating: 3
Duh...(I'll lower myself to your childish level for the fun of it)....

Where did I say that I didn't pay for the NHS????

What I said was that you HAVE to pay for the NHS and then pay again if you want private treatment in a reasonable time in a hospital which wont make you more ill than when you entered it in the first place.

I hope your care worker is better at reading comprehension than you are.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Logica on 7/26/2008 4:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Your friend fails pretty hard then. I got a 1st from a top university in engineering in 2003 and my pay has increased by 12% every single year. So in the age where degrees are apparently given away, how does that make your friend look. So this talk of not being able to make it with old fashion hard work is rubbish. Your friend obviously doesn't work hard enough.

The NHS is probably the greatest thing the UK has. I have private cover through my company, but still value the NHS immensely. Also, not everyone has to just contend with the state pension, I am fortunate enough to have a final salary pension scheme where my pension will be 66% of my final salary for every single year when I retire. Can't really argue with that. All civil servants get this and the goverment has put measures in place that also allow private companies to offer this as well.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/27/2008 6:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think I speak for every DT reader when we say that we are all very proud of you. Please stop being childish and using phrases like "fails hard" it just makes you look big headed and silly. A bit of free advice their for you.

You seem to be missing the point though.

Whatever you may think of my friend regarding his abilities and willingness to work, those things haven't changed since he emigrated.

Yet, from having some fairly average jobs in the UK after trying hard over a number of years, he was able to land a job in the states after only a couple of months of searching which is much better than many people have over here.

If he is a feckless, lazy moron then he would be just as poor an employment prospect in the States as here, surely?

Just imagine how much a hard working genius like you could be earning over there?!?

The NHS is pretty good, as I said but it is no where near as good as it should be.

As always, these things come down to individual experiences in the end.

That you have had some great success with the British education system and employment is wonderful and that you or your family have never had a problem with the NHS is even better but it does not mean that those problems do not exists and are very real.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By afkrotch on 7/28/2008 3:10:06 AM , Rating: 2
This sounds like a pretty dumb arguement. There's too many uncertainties to even bother. How many job openings were available in the two locations he was living at? How many job openings pertained to his field? How many of those jobs was he qualified for? How many applicants tried for those jobs?

He could have moved to some English city that only had a few openings available for this skills and a few hundred other applicants also fighting for that job, but they have a better skillset. Doesn't matter if you work hard or are lazy. You aren't getting a job in that kind of situation.

I can tell you it'll be easier for me to get an IT job in Boise, Idaho, than it would be in London, England. Why? Boise has a lot of IT jobs, but few IT professionals to fill them. While London has a lot of IT jobs and a lot more IT professionals to fill them all.

Also many other factors can play in. Who else did he work for? How long did he work for them? If he's been jumping jobs every year, that's not someone I'd want to bother hiring.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/28/2008 4:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
I sighted his experience as an example, not an absolute rule. The specifics are rather insignificant. It seems that I cannot satisfy some people here without providing a full CV (general level of competence and qualifications are of course relevant) and psych profile. Please try to see the bigger picture rather than getting carried away with this one case.

The difference in experience that he has had is startling though and fyi, he was single whilst in the UK so able to move within the UK to work, which he did on a few occasions. Amazingly he thought about that too.

That's before you start to mention that the US government leaves a lot more of the decisions as to what he does and can do with his hard earned money to him, rather than trying to take away those decisions and make them for him, as they do here. Or give his money away to the many who have been trapped* in the social security system that has changed from being a safety net to a hammock.

* Most of the people who are the biggest losers in the socialist system that Brown has developed are those who find themselves trapped in the system and sadly there are now many children who have grown up in families dependent on the (not insignificant) states handouts. They have very little incentive to better them selves as they know that the state will (to use the divorce court parlance) "keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed to".


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Nik00117 on 7/25/2008 1:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
I woke with a lot of brits, and they all say germany has way lower taxes then England.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 6:46:09 PM , Rating: 3
Sleeping with brits ?


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 6:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
......and I hear the food is REALLY lousy. The hottest techie chick I have ever met did job in London and said she would walk down the street and see some one so ugly she could swear she just saw the ugliest person in the world...then she would turn the corner and Uhhh ! in fright she would see someone uglier!


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By arazok on 7/25/2008 11:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
Wealth distribution is alive and well in Canada, but not nearly to the same extreme, and ones social network isn’t nearly as important as your ability to do the job.

I don’t know if you have ever vacationed in N. America, but if you have you must have noticed that the average person lives far better here. Our homes are bigger, our cars are bigger, even out soda and chips come in larger bags (for the same price I might add). I was staggered at how little a dollar would get you in Brittan. After taking exchange into account, everything in the stores was twice the price as it would be in N.America. Your average home is in the 1200sq ft range, while here 2000sq ft is considered average.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By xzc145 on 7/25/2008 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe, "homes bigger", you can fit the UK inside canada 40 times and yet canada has half the population of the uk....."homes bigger", no 5h*T sherlock!


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By kelmon on 7/26/2008 4:21:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I've worked in the US and had the opportunity to stay there but declined the offer. In fairness the principle reason was that the contract would have been too short (longer than a vacation but too short to start joining clubs, etc) but I also just don't like the place (Memphis, go figure). Bigger is not necessarily better and I definitely don't agree that people "live better" in the US, although I will agree that houses are much larger since land prices appear to be peanuts.

I'm sure that you won't agree (hey, we all tend to be protective of our home countries) but in the US your cars are rubbish and roads dull, everything is so spread out that you have to drive for the smallest thing (my father actually got stopped by the police for walking), the TV is terrible, and your beer is close to water.

So, no, I don't agree that you "can't make it" in the UK or that life is better in the US. However, you do get most tech products before we do, so that's a plus for the US.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By andyjary on 7/28/2008 5:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, me too...

I always say it's not the country, but the people that matter.

However, I've lived and worked all over the world and I have to say, I'd rather live in any of those countries I visited other than the US.

Even Madonna would agree with me!

Go figure...


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By dickeywang on 7/25/2008 11:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. I just moved from U.S. to Germany last fall for a new job, and I have to say that it was the biggest mistake I have ever made. Basically the governments in the European countries are putting all kinds of rules against the people in their country so one usually only has 1 or 2 possible choices on virtually everything, and of course each choice leads to some kind of tax that you need to pay to the government.
Man I really miss the States.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 6:48:32 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah and strangely enough the unDemocrat Liberal B.O. supporters think its a great idea we should import to the USA. They think they are geniuses all the while turning us into just another banana republic by avoiding drilling and shipping so many dollars out of the country for energy that the dollar totally collapses.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By FITCamaro on 7/26/2008 11:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
Should be another good reason NOT to vote for Obama.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By cmdrdredd on 7/26/2008 5:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
I know you got voted down because you made people realize something about Obama. This is the type of system Obama wants. Government control of everything...free enterprise out the window.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 6:37:13 PM , Rating: 1
That is the cost of socialism. No matter how you try you can never make any difference. You are forcibly stuck at the median line in the name of social justice.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By McGuffin on 7/25/2008 6:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everything I ever hear about Brittan reinforces by belief that I am fortunate not the live there.


Maybe you should learn to spell the name of the country you're dissing. Looks like at least its education system's better than wherever you're from.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 6:50:27 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you Miss Marpel. I bet you want to spank his schoolboy nads with a ruler! never fails to amaze me when people get all superior because someone mispells a word.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By jabber on 7/25/2008 7:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ermmm its Marple actually.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Sorry.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Polynikes on 7/30/2008 9:48:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, in Britain you're limited by the "class" you're born into, here, if you can make enough money you're a high roller.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By dickeywang on 7/25/2008 11:20:00 AM , Rating: 3
Well, UK is not the only country does that. Germany also charges TV tax even if you don't have a TV but only a computer that has network card/modem installed. Not sure if it is also true in other western European countries.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Cogman on 7/25/2008 2:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, don't get me wrong. If a country wants to make a TV tax that doesn't bother me. What bothered me was the whole "We know where you sleep and what you think, big brother is watching" kind of attitude. You where treated like a criminal when in fact you never committed any sort of crime. Thats what bothers me.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By phxfreddy on 7/25/2008 6:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
Taxes are part of how this sort of thing is pulled off. Think about it.

Thats why its best to keep taxes low. Otherwise gov't has too much horsepower for mischief.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By euczechguy on 7/28/2008 7:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
......

As far as i know, the TV tax comes only with TV channels with some state support or economical interest...

We, here in Czech republic, do have TV tax...if u own a TV/PC/SAT, u have to pay for it... approx. 10$/6Euros...
We even have it upgraded! u must pay for radio reciever :D
EVEN IF U DONT HAVE ONE! :D LOL

But i can tell u one thing, there is virtually no law permitting government to invade ur home just like that, must be properly issued warrant, signed by judge and revised by other one....

Thus, I would rather live in here then in US...
Now i could spray all the problems and stuff here, but we all know the US...
so, US chaps, please mind ur f**ing selves and let the EU be...
btw, i like fast food :D LOL!!!


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By walk2k on 7/25/2008 4:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
"We left that England place because it was BOGUS" - Jeff Spicoli

Honestly though, pirates deserve what they get. I know this is a very unpopular thing to say right now, but guess what, piracy is a crime, stealing is wrong and just because you steal from a "big evil corporation" doesn't make it right.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By FITCamaro on 7/26/2008 11:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
Britain has a TV tax?


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By kyleb2112 on 7/26/2008 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not only do they have a TV tax, but they have government vans that drive around with TV detectors to make sure you're not stealing TV. I'm not kidding. At least they did when I lived there.

But Brits will mock Americans for having ad supported TV because it interrupts the shows. THAT'S intolerable!


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By Aloonatic on 7/26/2008 2:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure that there ever were detector vans roaming the streets to be honest but it wouldn't surprise me, now they just assume everyone has a TV. They seem more like a bogey man type story to (as someone else pointed out earlier) scare people into conformity.

The TV tax is the license fee that you have to pay if you have any equipment in your home capable of receiving a TV broadcast, or something like that. There was a loop hole where a PC TV tuner, PC and monitor were exempt for a short while (so I'm told) but that has been shut. Even if you were to have a TV which could not receive the frequencies that the BBC broadcast on you still had to pay.

For the £145 (colour license, black & white is less) you get the BBC TV channels which have expanded over the last few years from 2 to 7 channels and the BBC world News too. This money is also used to pay for the BBC radio stations of which there are many, including the world service. Then there's the BBC web service, which is pretty big and not that bad. It's also been used to fund the digital switch over which is taking place now after ITV (independent TV) made and utter mess of it.

The license fee is much better value for money than it used to be. Before digital I thin the 2 BBC TV channels were amongst the most expensive in the world, if you simply divided the license fee by two.

What is being now being suggested is what would amount to a Music Tax, where by any home with a broad band connection pays a fee on top of the broadband service charge which goes to the poor darlings making the music that we are all forced to listen to every time we go to the supermarket, shopping mall, turn on the TV.... Great news for Amy Winehouse's drug dealer should she pull through her latest "illness" that is stopping her from performing.

To be honest, I don't watch much TV other than the news, the odd bit of sport and I feel I'm ripped off slightly (though not having adverts on the radio which I listen to is very nice) and I would feel the same about music tax if it were to be imposed, which with the week minded sheep like mentality of the British yellow bellied spineless public I wouldn't be surprised to see happen.


RE: Doesn't surpize me
By euczechguy on 7/28/2008 7:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
chill mate, we are not living V for Vendetta here...

better look into ur own US things before diss another EU country...

perhaps the colonies should remember their place...


three questions -
By mdogs444 on 7/25/2008 9:44:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What happens when the offender is the child in a household? What happens in cases of computers controlled by hackers or botnets? What happens when the “pirate” is making fair use of the copyright materials he downloads?


If the offender is the child - you hold the parents responsible. Whether the child is downloading crap, or out of the house causing mischief, the bottom line is the parents are responsible for the childs actions.

In the case of hackers or botnets, I don't know, but the point is that the courts/isp should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the PERSON actually performed the actions.

Maybe I'm confused, but I dont get the last question. How do you make "fair use" out of copyrighted material that you downloaded illegally?




RE: three questions -
By Radnor on 7/25/2008 9:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
From what ive read about this subject, it is just a "fear" act. It is just to insert fear. I hope the country i live actually never agrees with this laws. Really. Piracy is bad, sure, but is not the point. They are trying to enforce punitive measures when it will be hard to prove.

Whats next? Wikileaks going down ?? Honestly i just want they get what they want. To keep people from "piracing" their product. Everybody can now turn their free time to installing Linux and Having fun doing some Hackintosh.

V for Vendetta mates.


RE: three questions -
By tmouse on 7/25/2008 10:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe I'm confused, but I dont get the last question. How do you make "fair use" out of copyrighted material that you downloaded illegally?


It is awkward wording but I guess as an example if I download a PDF of a paper (legally) then forward it to one of my other computers (like home where I could not download it) using bit torrent; technically (by many publishers) that would be illegal. The hard part is determining what is and what is not an illegal download on the ISP end. Granted this would probably affect a small number; but in the growing world of online books and movies/ streaming or nonstreaming, and every variety in between it could be muddy fast.


RE: three questions -
By kelmon on 7/25/2008 10:28:28 AM , Rating: 1
I have absolutely no issue with action being taken against pirates (if I see another "I'm too poor to buy [insert non-necessity item here]" excuse, I'll throw up) but you have got to wonder how they'll be identifying infringing media. I'd like to think that it'd be through a sophisticated database of known files or some such, but the cynic in me thinks they'll just look for a P2P application running and decide that you're a pirate based on that.

What annoys me about this whole thing the most is that, as usual, it's the bad people ruining it all for everyone else. Not everything shared over P2P is copyrighted but it might as well be.


RE: three questions -
By coversyl on 7/25/2008 1:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
There will be no 'database'

As far as I can see this is how it works.

The BPI will connect to (say) wall-e torrent on minnova (say)

They will check it is indeed an infringing item and then note all the IP addresses of everyone in the swarm

They will forward that IP list to the ISPs who will then send out the warning letters

Explicitly stated is that the ISPs will NOT tell the BPI the identities of the infringers, they will simply send out letters


RE: three questions -
By LordDamion on 7/25/2008 10:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe I'm confused, but I dont get the last question. How do you make "fair use" out of copyrighted material that you downloaded illegally?


hmm... Maybe downloading something to watch on other devices that you already own a copy because you are too lazy to rip it yourself. Also, downloading a copy of a CD that you lost/broke to replace your original. The last one is something that i have actually done already.


RE: three questions -
By walk2k on 7/25/2008 4:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Actually no, you should have made a backup (which IS legal) otherwise, you have to buy it again. Or in some cases, like with software, the copy has an official replacement disc program. But just downloading from the internet... no that is still quite illegal no matter the reason.

Fair use is something else entirely and doesn't apply to that situation. (Fair use is when you re-print a small excerpt from a copyrighted work for educational or scientific purposes - not downloading "Wall-E" from Piratebay...)


RE: three questions -
By vhx on 7/26/2008 2:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, any sane person is going to download it instead of re-buying something they already own. Welcome to reality.


RE: three questions -
By tmouse on 7/25/2008 10:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
The problem remains that legal punishment is typically directed at an individual not inanimate objects. So you are correct a parent is legally responsible for the actions of their children, and (in the US) a spouse can be equally inconvenienced by the actions of the other (think joint property being seized for criminal activity). Now what if you have multiple unrelated (and thus NO shared legal liability) people in a house. One has the internet in their name (or they equally share) but allows the others to use it. It really is not as simple as saying well he lets them use it so he can be punished. Most laws I'm aware of do not hold another party responsible unless it can be proved they had knowledge of the activity and thus were guilty as "facilitators". As you point out this provides punishment without proving who is to blame and can punish innocent parties, which I think you would agree is wrong.


RE: three questions -
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2008 11:21:59 AM , Rating: 4
It all seems rather half backed and little more than a press release.

It's been all over the news and radio here, yet it is very sparse on details other than those in this article.

No mention of what activities constitute piracy, or how they intend to prove that you have been naughty. Based on traffic? IP addresses from shares that they have put up there (entrapment?) on Limewire/eMule etc etc?

No mention of who they are targeting. There's been phrases like "the worst pirates" being chased down?

No mention of an appeals process?

No mention of how the BPI have "become the law" on the internet without any say so by my elected representatives other than to hurry something through because they can't be bothered to think about it?

No mention of weather a court will have to be involved in the proposed/threatened virtual house arrest that will be imposed by the BPI, they can just do what they want based on what they say?

It all seems rather silly too.

If you are caught stealing or (more importantly it seems) they think that you have been stealing/breaching copyright 3 times from this plan would stop all of your family from going on-line.

I'm not sure how Marks and Spencers will feel about this when my mother can no longer use their website, or how eBay will feel about it when my father can not use their web site, or how apple/musicians/record companies will feel when my sister can no longer legally download music for her iPod or.....

Also, there has been a lot of (serious) talk of there being a "broad band/3G mobile phone tax" imposed, making all music free to download however you like.

That may keep the BPI happy, but the movie/gaming industry wouldn't be too keen on some media being a free for all leading people to assume that everything was fair game perhaps?


RE: three questions -
By Lerianis on 7/27/2008 3:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
Really, the fact is that these industries are creating their own problems by trying to keep their prices MUCH too high for what you are getting.

$60 dollars per episode of the .hack series and the second .hack series? Sorry, I loved those games, but I am nowhere NEAR willing to pay 60 dollars each for them.

These industries would be much better off to get real, get sane, and start making prices much less than they are right now, if not allowing EVERYTHING for online download in some fashion.
The music industry is finally getting smart with this, allowing Rhapsody and others to sell mp3's unprotected and at a low price.
The movie and game industries have NOT, for the most part, gotten smart about this yet. EA is one notable exception: every single game they offer for PC, is available to be bought online and downloaded.


How?
By angryandroid on 7/25/2008 7:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know how they might decide who is illegaly file sharing for them to send out these "strongly worded letters".




RE: How?
By cmdrdredd on 7/26/2008 9:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does anyone know how they might decide who is illegaly file sharing for them to send out these "strongly worded letters".


Likely by invading privacy and packet sniffing. Or just assuming that if you're sending more than a certain amount of data every month, you must be doing something illegal. Even if that data is simple videos being sent to your family or something similar.

Again I am happy I do not live there. I'm happy that I can get free TV provided I buy the equipment and if I choose to I can pay for premium TV and cable/satellite networks. CHOICE is grand isn't it? I also am very happy that my government leaves it up to the private institutions (ISPs in this case) to determine what action to take on suspected violations.

In reply to a previous poster about everything being spread out in the US and our cars being boring and the roads too. It's not my fault you happen to visit a crappy part of the rural countryside. Try visiting a major area like Miami, or LA. Then cruise up the coast or something. Cars boring? I'm sorry that you don't like cheap means of transportation. I guess you own an Aston Martin? No? Ok I thought not...and a Mini isn't exactly "exciting". I'll take my 1969 Camaro Z28 with a 396ci American V8. I also enjoy my freedoms such as owning firearms. Please don't resort to trash talking America based on a single visit to a rural area. Small towns are vastly different from metropolitan areas. In small towns, walking down the street is sometimes thought of as being akin to a drifter and they don't take kindly to that sort.

I'm just glad my government has had the sense so far to not attempt to threaten and impose unjust "taxes" on its people for enjoying one of the simple freedoms.


RE: How?
By FITCamaro on 7/26/2008 11:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you live so I can some steal your car? :)


RE: How?
By boogle on 7/27/2008 5:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
Should probably point out that the RIAA sues a LOT of people in the US, whether they're guilty or not. While this method involves letters and (initially) minor sanctions if you repeat.

There is very little appeal with the RIAA, and it's somewhat 50/50 whether you win in a court case. Even if you do win, they keep coming back at you until you're hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt due to legal fees and can no longer continue.

quote:
Small towns are vastly different from metropolitan areas. In small towns, walking down the street is sometimes thought of as being akin to a drifter and they don't take kindly to that sort.


So, basically, if you decide to walk somewhere in a small town you're considered to be a drifter, and someone that's bad? Not breaking any laws, yet get hassle from the law enforcement / citizenry? In the UK you can walk anywhere, even on roads. If you're caught walking on a motorway you won't be arrested, but you'll be told off and given a lift out of the area.

See, if you cherry-pick certain areas you can make any country look good, and any country look bad.


Illusion
By ph0ed1n on 7/26/2008 8:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
Is this really about piracy?

Or is it about establishing a system allowing the government to quickly cut off an Internet connection when they don't like what's being said?




RE: Illusion
By cmdrdredd on 7/26/2008 8:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is this really about piracy? Or is it about establishing a system allowing the government to quickly cut off an Internet connection when they don't like what's being said?


I think you hit the right button there and THANK GOD I do not live in a country such as that.


RE: Illusion
By Sandok on 7/27/2008 8:28:55 AM , Rating: 2
No you see, you can insult whoever and whatever you want in the UK... Don't like the country, or the PM or something, go ahead, you can't be jailed as there is also FREEDOM OF SPEECH in that contry.

I don't know why Americans think that ONLY the US has freedom of speech and such? France, England and the US all have vaguely similar constitutions given that they are all copies of each other.

Go to school, learn some history and culture and then talk about a country you've NEVER been to.


RE: Illusion
By ph0ed1n on 7/27/2008 10:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm aware of free speech outside of the U.S.

Some people believe that a government abides by their written power limitations.

I believe that maybe they do, but who's to stop them from abusing their power behind the scenes.

They are building a system allowing them to quickly terminate an Internet connection, and making it all look legit?

That's power. Power to be used or abused? That depends on how trustworthy they are. History isn't always favorable to governments on that front (in any country). Isn't that why written power limitations are put place to begin with?


I can see where this is going...
By mmntech on 7/25/2008 10:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
Should make stuff like Tor and botnets very popular. None of these proposed measures are fool proof. Ironically, it could make the net less secure as pirates use viruses create zombie networks to reroute traffic, similar to what spammers have done.

My concern is that governments and groups like the RIAA and MPAA are tying to turn the internet into some kind of police state. There are already hints of this in the proposed ACTA, such as monitoring browsing to find filesharers.
While piracy is a crime, it's certainly not the worst thing that happens on the internet. Far from it. Resources need to be pooled elsewhere, to combat more serious crimes like illegal pornography, fraud, terrorism, human/drug trafficking, etc.




By dickeywang on 7/25/2008 11:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what in my mind right now. I bet we will see some P2P softwares being released very soon which would automatically create zombie peers whenever it starts to download.


It's very simple.
By CSQuake on 7/25/2008 2:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Change your ISP to one that hasn't signed up to this. My ISP is not on the list, therefore I'm very happy, thanks.




RE: It's very simple.
By jamdunc on 7/25/2008 3:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
But who does your ISP buy it's capacity from. I'm guessing that would be BT Wholesale. So indirectly, by going for BT, they have all avenues covered.

Your ISP gets the letters from BT and if they don't cooperate, they might lose the capacity from BT and have to shut down. That's the way this thing seems to be going!


No measn of attack will rid us of piracy...
By Darkskypoet on 7/25/2008 5:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
if you think of it, no form of attack is ever going to rid us of piracy. It won't happen. What they may achieve is a reduction. In this case it is nasty letters. Nasty letters sent to the account holder may actually cause said account holder to cease the activity. As others have stated, this seems to be the culturally accepted norm in the UK. If for instance this reduces 'piracy' (even that is a loaded term) by say 20%, then it may achieve their goal with such a program. Consider in the US, where the society is much more used to litigious activities, here various groups are suing, directly threatening to sue, or indirectly through actions a and b threatening to sue all pirates; again its not going to get everyone to stop, mayhaps not even a majority but some have stopped.

In either case the idea is to get some to stop. I don't know the cost of either method, but if the orgs that are doing this (RIAA, MPAA, etc) can report successful enough reduction numbers to their industry feed bags, then it will continue. As both of these orgs exist at the pleasure of their industries, all they have to do is show results that make it seem like they are worth their funding, since they have clearly succeeded in convincing them that the threat is indeed dangerous enough to their bottom line to require such tactics.

That's really all it is, Convince industry this (piracy) is a major threat, show gains enough from their tactics to guarantee present, and future funding. Survive and perhaps flourish to continue to do their dirty work. If they don't get results, or if industry stops believing there is value in funding these menacing orgs, their reign is over. Thus, in each country they go into to 'stop piracy' they must adapt something that is societally acceptable to bring about a reduction (real or otherwise) to show their masters.

The fact that letters, and punishments in the UK is about all they will do speaks more to the fact that wide scale litigation isn't the norm, and would not be tolerated by their court system. Whereas in more money centric cultures, it is perfectly fine.




By boogle on 7/27/2008 5:25:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that letters, and punishments in the UK is about all they will do speaks more to the fact that wide scale litigation isn't the norm, and would not be tolerated by their court system. Whereas in more money centric cultures, it is perfectly fine.


This is true. In the UK you have to warn someone multiple times via letters before you can take them to court in most cases. If you DO take someone to court and its frivelous (wasting the judges time) or easily overturned, you'll probably end up paying the defendant's legal fees. The RIAA wouldn't be able to sue the same person over and over just to deplete their capital, even though the person wins every time.


Open and Free Internet Needed
By ph0ed1n on 7/27/2008 11:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
An open and free Internet 'above' government control gives power to the people to organize on a grand scale to oppose government abuse.

This is a wonderful thing, that no one should ever take for granted, nor let the governments take away.

Sadly, the governments are working to take it away by laws and encouragement (see ISPs encouraged to block portions of Usenet to deal with child porn).

All a government needs to say is that their actions are to protect children and the citizenry submits their individual rights, giving power to that government (power to be wielded over the children).

In the end, it's another example of coercion supposedly wielded to teach responsibility (oppose immaturity).

Such examples should be globally shunned.

Governments demonstrate repeatedly that they are incapable of teaching responsibility. Giving them the power to impair/block Internet connections isn't going to do it. There needs to be a Liberty-embracing educational method to teach responsibility instead.

Everyone needs to put individual rights (and those of posterity) above all.

Then we need to address the problem of people abusing those rights, by teaching the very real value in being responsible (maturity), and if that fails (e.g. people mentally unable to mature), use the power of law to protect others' individual rights from that abuser.

It may not be a perfect solution, but I'll take it over a government's blanket violation of individual rights 'for the sake of the collective' anytime.




RE: Open and Free Internet Needed
By Spectator on 7/29/2008 4:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
We need some people with balls and cash to take the piass out of those that would limit our free will.

like.
Send your own Satelite into space. that is my torrent server up there. I dare you to go and seaze it mofo :P

Or that oil rig that is classed as its own country. with a self appointed King/Prince.

I am all for anyone who takes there freedom into there own hands; as long as it does not affect my life or choices in a negative way.

And on the TV tax issue. the BBC rake in 3 billion a year GBP. and the funny thing is. they estimate they have about 130mil a year excess. they dont lower the fee though.
They are perhaps going to share it with the other broadcasters..

How mad is that. ahh fookem they have to pay us 3bil a year by law. they are used to being shafted; we can do what we like. risk/effort free 3bil a year.. "Wrings Hands with a mad grin"

Spectator.


Interesting wording
By tmouse on 7/25/2008 9:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
“hundreds of thousands” of strongly-worded letters will be sent out to suspected internet pirates – giving them a chance to change their ways before more severe punishments set in.


I know you meant many suspected pirates will get letters but it could also be interpreted as each pirate getting hundreds of thousands of letters. Boy THAT would be a deterrent, but hard on the postal carriers.
I suppose, in a pythonesque manner, they could (dum..dum...Daaa!) “Put them in the COMFY CHAIR”.




Typical yanks
By B3an on 7/27/2008 6:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
Dissing things they dont understand. With there "we're so great and better than you" mentality.

The world is sick of the U.S or A holes.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki