UK file-sharers will be 'cut off'
Discussion
Frankeh said:
Mr E said:
Frankeh said:
Downloading is not against the law. Uploading is.
When you use P2P software you download AND upload. It's the upload part that they get you with. You're sharing copyrighted material.
Erm. Where did you get that nugget from?When you use P2P software you download AND upload. It's the upload part that they get you with. You're sharing copyrighted material.
Discussed earlier (much earlier) in the thread, and covered nicely by BM's cartoon...
cs02rm0 said:
Frankeh said:
Yes. That article seems to relate to the US and Canada so far as I could see, but equally it's against copyright law in the UK to download copyrighted material. Not theft, but not something you're free to do regardless.
t.On a side note, P2P does not imply you have to upload. P2P implies that a central server may not be required, instead clients or peers in this case can share directly with each other. Some specific P2P protocols do mandate uploading, but by no means all.
Never happens though.
You're right, though.
There's still a million ways around this law though. For example SSH tunnel through a server in some other country.
Your ISP wont even know what you're doing.
I'm fairly sure that prior to the bill being reconsidered, they only needed a suspicion in order to cut people off.
When they can't tell any more, then the proposers and lobbyists for this bill will ask for such a mechanism once more.
My problem with all of this, is it's sleepwalking towards such a state of affairs.
The thing in future will be that regulation will mandate only "trusted" encryption standards. These will be the ones where encrypted content is "accountable". Perhaps even the trusted encryption standards will be weaker than they could be. This is likely on the basis that encryption standards are tougher to crack as they develop and time moves forward.
If you mandate a particular encryption standard for use today, the law may not change for ten or more years, by which time the encryption standard is out of date and weak.
If like me, you use your own encryption, you're toast. Not using a "trusted" encryption standard will be tantamount to illegal file sharing.
Basically, I think we're moving toward a situation where if the "them" cannot tell what you're doing you'll be persecuted.
Perhaps the government Acronym should be "Testing Hardcore Explicit Material".
When they can't tell any more, then the proposers and lobbyists for this bill will ask for such a mechanism once more.
My problem with all of this, is it's sleepwalking towards such a state of affairs.
The thing in future will be that regulation will mandate only "trusted" encryption standards. These will be the ones where encrypted content is "accountable". Perhaps even the trusted encryption standards will be weaker than they could be. This is likely on the basis that encryption standards are tougher to crack as they develop and time moves forward.
If you mandate a particular encryption standard for use today, the law may not change for ten or more years, by which time the encryption standard is out of date and weak.
If like me, you use your own encryption, you're toast. Not using a "trusted" encryption standard will be tantamount to illegal file sharing.
Basically, I think we're moving toward a situation where if the "them" cannot tell what you're doing you'll be persecuted.
Perhaps the government Acronym should be "Testing Hardcore Explicit Material".
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 15th April 16:03
dilbert said:
Basically, I think we're moving toward a situation where if the "them" cannot tell what you're doing you'll be persecuted.
We're already there.If you refuse to decrypt your files (Which my incriminate yourself) they can charge you anyway using what they believe to be on the computer as evidence.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/
Frankeh said:
dilbert said:
Basically, I think we're moving toward a situation where if the "them" cannot tell what you're doing you'll be persecuted.
We're already there.If you refuse to decrypt your files (Which my incriminate yourself) they can charge you anyway using what they believe to be on the computer as evidence.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/
Consider the situation where you actually wanted to do something wrong. Use your own encryption. If they ask, you give them the password that unpacks fluffy bunnies, rather than (insert hardcore obscenity here).
I don't quite know how they handle this situation. From what I know of the government, however, I'm sure that the benefit of the doubt is not an option.
What happens if you're just sending semi-random data about the place? If they get the idea that it's nefarious what options do they have. You tell them there is no password, and they don't believe it.
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 15th April 16:28
dilbert said:
I'm fairly sure that prior to the bill being reconsidered, they only needed a suspicion in order to cut people off.
I'd really hope that just seeing encrypted traffic wouldn't be enough though. Not that it would surprise me if it turns out to be the case.dilbert said:
The thing in future will be that regulation will mandate only "trusted" encryption standards.
I'm sure they'd love that. I don't think it would be workable though for a number of reasons. Encryption algorithms get holes found in them all the time. I can't imagine our government efficiently mandating new ones, getting software updates pushed out quickly. All of which would have the pressure of the big business that's locked into the internet these days and all those eyes on a fewer number of encryption algorithms.Frankeh said:
dilbert said:
Basically, I think we're moving toward a situation where if the "them" cannot tell what you're doing you'll be persecuted.
We're already there.If you refuse to decrypt your files (Which my incriminate yourself) they can charge you anyway using what they believe to be on the computer as evidence.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/
cs02rm0 said:
dilbert said:
I'm fairly sure that prior to the bill being reconsidered, they only needed a suspicion in order to cut people off.
I'd really hope that just seeing encrypted traffic wouldn't be enough though. Not that it would surprise me if it turns out to be the case.dilbert said:
The thing in future will be that regulation will mandate only "trusted" encryption standards.
I'm sure they'd love that. I don't think it would be workable though for a number of reasons. Encryption algorithms get holes found in them all the time. I can't imagine our government efficiently mandating new ones, getting software updates pushed out quickly. All of which would have the pressure of the big business that's locked into the internet these days and all those eyes on a fewer number of encryption algorithms.These people are the real bodies that will be running the world in twenty years, because they are the only ones capable of comprehending what's happening. They can do anything they want, no-one else can prove they're dodgy. The ordinary people have no security or confidence.
Governments have to trust them, because they don't have any other scheme.
They control the money, the information, the lot.
The EU thinks it's King, but give it a few years.
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 15th April 16:32
dilbert said:
What happens if you're just sending semi-random data about the place? If they get the idea that it's nefarious what options do they have. You tell them there is no password, and they don't believe it.
I've often thought it would be amusing to embed chunks of random/crypto data in mail headers.What's needed is a wee prog that does one time one way hashes of lines from a spooks/fortunes db.
If challenged you would be able to show that you had no way of knowing the one time key and point them at the fortunes which should appear if they successfully brute force it...
Anyone up for writing a Thunderbird extension?
Gedon said:
Nanny wants to control the interweb.
I'm sure in a few minutes the terminator will be back from the future to kill nanny.
Banned from the internet.....?
We are a little island and only need a little government. Time to get rid of most of them, and the EU whilst we are at it.
I'm sure in a few minutes the terminator will be back from the future to kill nanny.
Banned from the internet.....?
We are a little island and only need a little government. Time to get rid of most of them, and the EU whilst we are at it.
Going back to an earlier theme, it is pretty clear that the various media industries need to adapt their business model.
Nowadays it's near enough impossible to segregate markets on a geographic basis as media distributors seem to be obsessed with, all this region 1, 2, 4 BS is ridiculous and wasteful.
Likewise insisting on distributing media by DVD or CD, just forget that whole system - its time has passed.
Instant, electronic, international distribution is the new distribution model and I for one cannot see why media companies don't embrace it - their market has just increased exponentially to everyone who has a computer hooked up to the internet at the same time they can sell their media direct to the customer without having to mess around (and pay)around distributors.
If they went for a volume over price led distribution model, with the costs of media printing and physical distribution cut out, the actual producer of the media should be selling copies of their media by the shedload.
What they don't seem to understand is that people don't want to have complicated software, that they don't really understand, downloading hookie copies of dodgy quality media files along with god knows what virus.
They want cheap, instantly accessible, good quality copies of the media files to use when they want, how they want and they don't to be paying more than someone in the States or Hong Kong or to have to wait 3 months for it to be released in their country.
If media companies could get their heads around that model (which seems so obvious and straight-forward that a 5 year old could understand), then it would be better for everyone, apart from the distributors who are nothing but middlemen.
How many millions of people would download a bona fide HD quality version of Avataar from the producer if it were available worldwide from a secure source for £1-2 3 months after its cinema release ended?
How many people would actually bother copying it from their mates if it were just £1 to get a real copy?
Nowadays it's near enough impossible to segregate markets on a geographic basis as media distributors seem to be obsessed with, all this region 1, 2, 4 BS is ridiculous and wasteful.
Likewise insisting on distributing media by DVD or CD, just forget that whole system - its time has passed.
Instant, electronic, international distribution is the new distribution model and I for one cannot see why media companies don't embrace it - their market has just increased exponentially to everyone who has a computer hooked up to the internet at the same time they can sell their media direct to the customer without having to mess around (and pay)around distributors.
If they went for a volume over price led distribution model, with the costs of media printing and physical distribution cut out, the actual producer of the media should be selling copies of their media by the shedload.
What they don't seem to understand is that people don't want to have complicated software, that they don't really understand, downloading hookie copies of dodgy quality media files along with god knows what virus.
They want cheap, instantly accessible, good quality copies of the media files to use when they want, how they want and they don't to be paying more than someone in the States or Hong Kong or to have to wait 3 months for it to be released in their country.
If media companies could get their heads around that model (which seems so obvious and straight-forward that a 5 year old could understand), then it would be better for everyone, apart from the distributors who are nothing but middlemen.
How many millions of people would download a bona fide HD quality version of Avataar from the producer if it were available worldwide from a secure source for £1-2 3 months after its cinema release ended?
How many people would actually bother copying it from their mates if it were just £1 to get a real copy?
Edited by youngsyr on Friday 16th April 18:26
bonsai said:
youngsyr said:
How many people would actually bother copying it from their mates if it were just £1 to get a real copy?
Well considering I download songs for free, that'll be me.Would you really be that tight as to download a free hookie copy? If so, I'd suggest that nothing could get you to pay for your downloads, so the industry hasn't lost out in any case.
The real risk to the media industries is that they'll lose the additional revenue from those people who will pay £19.99 for a BluRay or £9.99 for an a CD album, but from a completely unresearched position, I suspect the revenue that they lose in a premium price model could be picked up in a volume led model.
Personally I have no problem paying a reasonable amount for media, quality costs money after all, but I'm not prepared to be used by the media industry exactly as they see fit - i.e. to be told when, where and how I can buy their products.
If they want me to buy their products, they're going to have to market them to me in the way that I want. I don't want dozens of Blurays or hundreds of CDs lying around the place, getting lost, scratched and so on and I certainly don't want to have to pay extra to have a physical copy of the media produced and delivered to me.
I don't want to have to wait 5 days for my purchases to arrive from Amazon, or traipse to the high street or a shopping centre to buy them. I also don't want to pay more for it or wait 3 months for it just because I happen to live in England.
Thankfully I believe I'm in the growing majority and at some point the media industries are going to have to wake up to this.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff