Internet providers chasing downloaders

[CivicMan]

Can someone who understands these things, please explain in laymans terms, the path by which an Internet provider can track down an individual who has downloaded a song off Limewire and send them a threatening letter? Is it not a very complex and tedious task, and then multiply it by 15 million or whatever the number of downloaders are??

[marshalla]

They're not chasing people who have definitely downloaded music (yet) as far as I know - just those who are known to use filesharing software (easily identifiable by port numbers).

However - it's not that difficult to set up filters which can grab a complete stream of packets and reconstruct a single application's session, based on IP address, port number and sequence number. Tedious, needs a lot of storage, but not hugely difficult.

[madrob6]

Not that complex, I had a few letters in the past when my housemate decided to constantly download tv shows and despite me telling him to stop because I was fed up of getting threatened for his actions he carried on. Pulling the cable out stopped him pretty sharpish mind.

Don't know how far they're taking it this time but I received 3 letters I think and heard nothing more from it.

[A8VIP]

So everyone will just go and use cafe WiFi instead then...

[sprinter885]

but don't you pay for cafe use anyway?
Might as well have paid for download???

Doh !-just realised you meant taking lap top in !! Double Doh!

Edited by sprinter885 on Friday 25th July 11:16

[Plotloss]

Get a threatening letter, vote with your feet.

Easy enough, theres a good level of portability in the ISP market and money talks.

[voyds9]

Personally I think it is just a way to get rid of the people who actually use the service they pay for (unlimited downloads) but retain the people who check email twice a week.

[DaveL485]

marshalla said:

They're not chasing people who have definitely downloaded music (yet) as far as I know - just those who are known to use filesharing software (easily identifiable by port numbers).

However - it's not that difficult to set up filters which can grab a complete stream of packets and reconstruct a single application's session, based on IP address, port number and sequence number. Tedious, needs a lot of storage, but not hugely difficult.

So what if I use a random port number each time I start the application?

[Simpo Two]

Plotloss said:

Get a threatening letter, vote with your feet.

Easy enough, theres a good level of portability in the ISP market and money talks.

Until HM Govt makes giving up the information compulsory under terrorism powers... I can't of a time when this Govt has acrually give the honest reason why they are doing something - there is ALWAYS a hidden agenda that creeps out afterwards.

[ewenm]

voyds9 said:

Personally I think it is just a way to get rid of the people who actually use the service they pay for (unlimited downloads) but retain the people who check email twice a week.

It's not about the volume of download though is it? Films, songs, TV shows have a value. If you download them for free, you're not paying for that value. Some places you've already paid (iPlayer for example) so it's not an issue, others you haven't paid for it, and understandably the rights owners get annoyed.

I don't understand why online theft is seen as fine. Is it OK for me to take a DVD/CD from HMV without paying for it?

[DaveL485]

ewenm said:

voyds9 said:

I don't understand why online theft is seen as fine. Is it OK for me to take a DVD/CD from HMV without paying for it?

I Would, If I knew I could get away with it. As would most people.


Carrot>>Donkey.

Eeeeeaaaawwwwww.

[illmonkey]

ewenm said:

voyds9 said:

Personally I think it is just a way to get rid of the people who actually use the service they pay for (unlimited downloads) but retain the people who check email twice a week.

It's not about the volume of download though is it? Films, songs, TV shows have a value. If you download them for free, you're not paying for that value. Some places you've already paid (iPlayer for example) so it's not an issue, others you haven't paid for it, and understandably the rights owners get annoyed.

I don't understand why online theft is seen as fine. Is it OK for me to take a DVD/CD from HMV without paying for it?

Firstly, the ISP's don't care about you breaking copyright laws, they care about all of the bandwidth that you are gobbling up downloading anything. They have to pay for bandwidth, they pass the cost onto the customer. They hope most people wont use what they pay for, so the ISP makes some cash.

The people who actually use their limit annoy the ISP and they cost more money.

It’s not ok for you to walk into HMV and nick a copy of a DVD. But here you aren’t strictly doing that. You’re downloading a digital copy of said product. Nothing physical is being taken.

I might have possibly, once downloaded a film, or not. I know if I hadn’t of downloaded said film I would NOT of purchased it in any shape or form be it digital or physical for the sky-high price they charge.

The big cheese's seem to think they are loosing money to pirate. They are not most of the time. I'm through a number of 80% out there of every person who downloads stuff illegally wouldn’t buy it anyway.

Edited by illmonkey on Friday 25th July 11:47

[Fetchez la vache]

I thought they had been doing this for years anyway. I worked with someone who got sent a letter from Warner (if I recall) for downloading one of their films. This was 2 - 3 years ago.

Obviously no legal weight behind it, but meant to make you poop your pants...

[ewenm]

illmonkey said:

ewenm said:

voyds9 said:

Personally I think it is just a way to get rid of the people who actually use the service they pay for (unlimited downloads) but retain the people who check email twice a week.

It's not about the volume of download though is it? Films, songs, TV shows have a value. If you download them for free, you're not paying for that value. Some places you've already paid (iPlayer for example) so it's not an issue, others you haven't paid for it, and understandably the rights owners get annoyed.

I don't understand why online theft is seen as fine. Is it OK for me to take a DVD/CD from HMV without paying for it?

Firstly, the ISP's don't care about you breaking copyright laws, they care about all of the bandwidth that you are gobbling up downloading anything. They have to pay for bandwidth, they pass the cost onto the customer. They hope most people wont use what they pay for, so the ISP makes some cash.

The people who actually use their limit annoy the ISP and they cost more money.

Its not ok for you to walk into HMV and nick a copy of a DVD. But here you arnt strictly doing that. you're downloading a digital copy of said product. nothing phyisical is being taken.

I might have possibly, once downloaded a film, or not. I know if I hadnt of downloaded said film i would NOT of purchased it in any shape or form be it digitial or phyical for the sky high price they charge.

The big cheese's seem to think they are loosing money to pirate. They are not most of the time. I'm through a number of 80% out there of every person who downloads stuff illegally wouldnt buy it anyway.

You're looking at it back to front. It's not the DVD that has value, it's the content.

If I were the distributor, I'd be chasing the ISPs for the value of the information downloaded over their network. The ISP would then chase the downloaders. Not possible yet, but the longer illegal downloading goes on for, the harder the producers will work at it.

I have no problem with people stealing the content as long as they don't have a problem being called thieves. I do find it amusing that people get upset about that, moral issues don't apply in the anonymity of the online world apparently.

[illmonkey]

ewenm said:

illmonkey said:

ewenm said:

voyds9 said:

Personally I think it is just a way to get rid of the people who actually use the service they pay for (unlimited downloads) but retain the people who check email twice a week.

It's not about the volume of download though is it? Films, songs, TV shows have a value. If you download them for free, you're not paying for that value. Some places you've already paid (iPlayer for example) so it's not an issue, others you haven't paid for it, and understandably the rights owners get annoyed.

I don't understand why online theft is seen as fine. Is it OK for me to take a DVD/CD from HMV without paying for it?

Firstly, the ISP's don't care about you breaking copyright laws, they care about all of the bandwidth that you are gobbling up downloading anything. They have to pay for bandwidth, they pass the cost onto the customer. They hope most people wont use what they pay for, so the ISP makes some cash.

The people who actually use their limit annoy the ISP and they cost more money.

Its not ok for you to walk into HMV and nick a copy of a DVD. But here you arnt strictly doing that. you're downloading a digital copy of said product. nothing phyisical is being taken.

I might have possibly, once downloaded a film, or not. I know if I hadnt of downloaded said film i would NOT of purchased it in any shape or form be it digitial or phyical for the sky high price they charge.

The big cheese's seem to think they are loosing money to pirate. They are not most of the time. I'm through a number of 80% out there of every person who downloads stuff illegally wouldnt buy it anyway.

You're looking at it back to front. It's not the DVD that has value, it's the content.

If I were the distributor, I'd be chasing the ISPs for the value of the information downloaded over their network. The ISP would then chase the downloaders. Not possible yet, but the longer illegal downloading goes on for, the harder the producers will work at it.

I have no problem with people stealing the content as long as they don't have a problem being called thieves. I do find it amusing that people get upset about that, moral issues don't apply in the anonymity of the online world apparently.

I understand what you are saying, and I mentioned the digital download point meaning as "content" rather than a physical product. But regardless of how it comes, I and most other downloaders wont buy the content and the stupidly inflated costs.

It drives me mad seeing Amy Whinehouse "suffer" with the fame and money, the release of 1 ok-ish song has brought her. These people make millions upon millions. Not to mention the people behind singers/movies etc. Look at Simon Cowell, he is a multi-millionaire, so are a few of his groups/acts. Fair enough he’s worked hard for it. But im not happy giving him so much money for a song/album.

Now, if Simon Cowell stood up and said. "I am so freaking rich I need no more income! I tell you what, im going to half the costs of my singles/albums (he'd still get income), then anything I do make goes to charity, or the emergency services." I'd be buying CD's from him...

[ln1234]

How are they going to know what you're downloading if it's all encrypted?

[Geronimo]

I've got over 3 grands worth of downloaded applications, films, games and music. I'd rather spend what little money I have on stuff I can't get for free. Also, I do not accept it as thievery in the usual sense of the word.

And yes, I have definitely downloaded stuff that had I not been able to, I would have bought. I know this is usually a pro-pirates main argument so I thought I'd throw a curve ball in.

Although, if we want to get into semantics then the film company/music shop haven't made a loss (like they would if I'd stolen a hard copy off the shelves), they just have not made a gain.

Of course I know it's morally wrong but I don't lose any sleep over it.

Edited by Geronimo on Friday 25th July 12:18

[hifihigh]

CivicMan said:

Can someone who understands these things, please explain in laymans terms, the path by which an Internet provider can track down an individual who has downloaded a song off Limewire and send them a threatening letter? Is it not a very complex and tedious task, and then multiply it by 15 million or whatever the number of downloaders are??

Normally someone like the British Phonographic Industry or whoever will sit connected to limewire on a fast connection sharing a big directory of music that they own the copyright too. Anyone that connects to this client to download a song or part of a song or whatever will have their ip address logged. The BPI then writes to the internet provider that the ip is registered to and encourages them to send a warning letter to the customer responsible.

[Kozy]

When I saw it in the news last night, my brother and I turned to each other and nodded... "First one to get a letter wins an egg..."

I don't download much, but that was a challenge!

[Mars]

I tend to download TV programmes that have aired in the US prior to their airing in the UK. Is this no more "thievery" than recording TV programmes stright from air?


I accept that downloading music and movies that have NOT aired is theft though.