BPI Requests ISPs Suspend Suspected Filesharers 224
MartinJW writes "The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has written to two of the UKs larger ISPs, Tiscali and Cable & Wireless, asking them to suspend the accounts of 59 users they have identified as 'illegal file sharers.' The BPI says they have 'unequivocal evidence' of IP addresses that were used to upload 'significant quantities' of music. Although the IP addresses were used to identify the ISPs involved, the providers are the only people able to identify the exact individuals responsible. This marks a significant change in the BPI's tactics; previously they have targeted individuals but it seems that they are now taking it one step further and requesting the ISPs take decisive action to uphold the terms in their own 'acceptable use policies.'"
I pay a tax on blanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:4, Funny)
Stamp Taxes
Sugar Taxes
Tea Taxes!
Bah you British.
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:3, Funny)
*runs away*
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
I thought it was started in the 1990s with video & cassette tapes but I was wrong (a seemingly increasing phenomena, I must be feeling my age!)
Here's a 2001 article where various EU states were mulling it over
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1120199.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a link to a document I found the information above, it holds quite a lot of information:
(Stakeholder Consultation on Copyright Levies in a Convergin World)
http://www.ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:3, Interesting)
In the UK, even most of the "obvious" personal uses are infringing at present, though the majority of the population don't know this and do continue to do these things anyway. A review is underway that will hopefully result in fixing this particular legal daftness.
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:4, Insightful)
It also applies to standalone audio CD duplication devices, as opposed to generic 'data' ones that you find in computers. Hasn't really been relevent for years though, as everyone just buys data CDs and burners, they're physically identical to the 'music specific' audio CDs. Haven't even seen an audio specific CD for ages.
However, there's no general blank-media tax on data CDs, DVDs, flash players, hard-drives etc etc. Only the tax on Audio CDs and DAT tapes, both of which are rather obsolete these days.
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
Secondly, as another commenter wrote, there's no media tax in the U.K. But even if there were, it doesn't account for sharing, just downloading or local copying.
But one thing I would love to see is a case in which someone were sued for acquiring or otherwise being in posession of entertainment content on media that has been t
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:3, Insightful)
If it weren't for the fact that the government in the UK are utterly without capacity for rational thought, I would
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
Huh? Why? You can tax basically anything you want. It is really just an issue of creating the law for it.
> if you in your country have such a concept as fair use (we don't, though, in
>the UK), enabling you to legally copy then there is no justification to extract
>a levy for exercising that right.
The fact that you DO allow private copying is the reason there is also a levy. It is supposed to compensate for the private copying. One can argue abou
Re:I pay a tax on blanks (Score:2)
You either require an additional licence to do something (and must therefore pay for the privilege) or you don't, and therefore don't need to pay for it.
The government can tax anything they feel like, as much as they feel like - air, olive oil, the use of escalators, whatever. In their infinite wisdom, they already charge VAT at 17.5% on blank CDs. So the government is taxing the purchase of CDs. But they are not extracting a levy from those who buy blank CDs, in order to compensate copyright hold
Not going to be a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Tiscali heeft 1 nieuwsserver, namelijk news.tiscali.nl. Deze nieuwsserver geeft alleen tekst bestanden weer en ondersteunt dus geen binaries. Tiscali heeft hier bewust voor gekozen omdat binarie servers veelal gebruikt worden voor het illegaal downloaden van auteursrechtelijke bestanden. Tiscali stimuleert juist de legale verspreiding van auteursrechtelijke bestanden via tiscali.music en tiscali.video.
In dutch but I doubt it will be different for the english branch.
Sadly at the moment it ain't my choice to use them. It ain't my connection and for 1 year getting a second line installed is to expensive but I can't wait to get my xs4all account back.
Oh and did anyone else notice that if this happens then people are being punished without ever having seen a judge or even a police officer. No sworn in official will be involved just people from two companies. Welcome to the justice system of the 21st century.
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Grand stand much?
A private business has every right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason ( despite what the equal rights groups may tell you ).
This isn't a government organization exacting punitive measures against citizens on a private organizations say-so. This is one private org asking another to "punish" their customers.
Their paying customers. Which to me seems like a bad idea. But whatever.
Not correct (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:5, Informative)
Under UK and EU law, you're entirely wrong. You cannot refuse service based on race, sex, age, disability and now I believe religion - based upon the Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act and Equal Opportunities Act.
'Needing my internet fix' however, I believe doesn't fall under any protected class at this time.
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
Your post would have been so much more useful if you'd cited your references.
The Race Relations Act 1976 is not yet on OPSI.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (III,19) [opsi.gov.uk] says (amongst other things):
19.(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person (a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
The Equal Opportunity Act 1984 is not
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
>contract against their will, recall that a general announcement of goods or of a
>service (e.g. an advertisement, a price tag) is an offer, indicating willingness
>to enter into a contract.
Are you talking about UK specific or in general? Because if you talk in general it is not true. In many countries such general announcements, advertising and such are not an offer for a contract but a more of a show of products or goods
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
>least), just showing a price tag or advertisement is an invitation to treat,
>that is, an indication of willingness to negotiate for the item advertised.
Yes, but are you required and legally bound to sell it for that price if anyone wants to? What about if every person in your country (or indeed the world) shows up and wants it claiming they accept your offer and agree to it (thus forming a binding contract). You would thus h
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:4, Funny)
You could probably start a religion requiring Internet access though
Might still be breach of contract (Score:2)
An interesting side note (from Germany, where I live):
ISPs frequently offer a nice hardware package (DSL router, often with WLAN) in exchange for a minimum contract duration of 1-2 years. If the provider now breaks the service contract, chances are that you could cance
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
An end of a contract happens all the time, you can end your contract with your employer if you don't like your work, the other way around, etc. etc. Therefore you shouldn't see this as a punishme
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
>that you should not spread illegal content, then they have all rights to end
>your contract, both the provider and the user agreed with this at the start of
>the contract.
And who decide if you have done that or not? Some third party entity just claiming so? Typically that (if you commit an illegal act or not) is decided by courts.
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
Of course I have. Have you read my post?
>It says "BPI requests ISP's Suspend Suspected Filesharers". "Requests",
>not "orders". The decision will be taken by the ISP, who are party to the
>contract.
Yes, and they can't determine that you commit an illegal activity any more than the BPI or anyone else EXCEPT police/courts. Those are the only ones to decide or determine if you commit an illegal activity. Hence, the ISP can't on their own decide you commi
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
2.2 We can end the service immediately if:
2.2.1 you fail to meet any of these terms and conditions (including but not limited to clause 5);
2.2.4 you use abusive or threatening behaviour while using the service.
Does tiscali go to court to prove that you have or have not been using threatening behav
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:3, Informative)
Under UK law, an employer CANNOT end your contract if they "don't like your work". They have to prove (before the unfair dismissal tribunal that is now almost inevitable) that you are incompetant, acting in bad faith, or that they have made a determined effort to explain why they don't like you and to get you to change your behaviour. The employee is free to leav
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:3, Informative)
Under UK law, an employer CANNOT end your contract if they "don't like your work".
Correct, but note that the Right not to be unfairly dismissed has a qualifying period, during which any dismissal is considered fair,
Employment Rights Act 1996 [opsi.gov.uk] (two years) reduced to one year by Statutory Instrument 1999/1436 [opsi.gov.uk] sections 2-4.
References (Score:2)
IME, most large employers will do little more than confirming that Mr Jones did indeed work for them between the relevant dates. There's just no upside to giving any information they don't have to, and they could be screwed by either the former employee or his new employer if things go bad and the blame comes back to their reference.
In this case, I think the law should provide some sort of "good faith" safe harbour protection for those giving references (much as witnesses in court automatically get certai
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
So much of our daily lives are being carried out online. The much-vaunted "digital divide" is something that governments are at pains to resolve, otherwise they will see a new social underclass evolve, and will lose general productivity amongst their population.
One can see, then, that if industry groups such as the BPI are able to remove someone from being online now, this could set a dangerous precedent for the future that would see large companies [or their representatives] being able to control who is or who is not online with out any legal oversight whatsoever.
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
So much of our daily lives are being carried out online. The much-vaunted "digital divide" is something that governments are at pains to resolve, otherwise they will see a new social underclass evolve, and will lose general productivity amongst their population.
One can see, then, that if industry groups such as the BPI are able to remove someo
Hogwash... (Score:2)
Is the internet useful? Yes. Comparable to food, clothes or shelter? Absolutely not.
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
Re:Not going to be a problem (Score:2)
>using the service for illegal file sharing? That these people are therefore in
>breach of a contract they have with the ISP? That therefore the ISP is within
>their rights to withdraw from that contract?
And how would you (ot the ISP) know if you have commited illegal file sharing? Just because someone claims so?
They'll give in, and they probably should... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's worth noting that the users may not be intentionally violating the (civil) law, it may just be open proxies or misconfigured P2P clients, in which case the accounts can be re-established later (after reasonable assurance that the problem's been 'fixed').
Re:They'll give in, and they probably should... (Score:2)
If the ISP gets paid by other networks to recieve data from the ISP then the ISP might think twice about closing accounts that create large amount of revenue for it.
Revenue... (Score:2)
I think the point he was trying to make is that the revenue generated by those users who own the accounts which are being used to illegaly download music generate less revenue than it would cost to deal with the flood of lawsuits from the BPI. Also keep in mind that in many European countries the party that loses a civil lawsuit pays the costs o
Re:Revenue... (Score:2)
Godfrey vs. Demon case (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, the tiny number of customers in question probably aren't generating large amounts of revenue for the ISP.
Moreover, the fact that the ISP has been told about the infringing use of their network potentially lays them open to huge legal liability. We had Godfrey vs. Demon [zdnet.co.uk] back in 1999, and ISPs in the UK have bee
Misconfigured my ass (Score:2)
Which, as the innocent denizens of Slashdot often remind us, are no doubt being used for purely non-infringing purposes, such as downloading home made movies and Linux distros...
Or perhaps you meant 'misconfigured' in the sense of 'not running PeerGuardian'.
Realistically, it is quite likely that the individuals being targeted are uploading copyright material. The more
Look on the bright side (Score:2)
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:5, Informative)
"BPI has taken legal action in 139 filesharing cases. The four that have gone to court have produced verdicts in BPI's favour, while 111 individuals have settled out of court."
Remember, the RIAA and BPI are just the legal mouthpieces of the major international record labels. Anything they do, they do at the behest of:
* Universal Music Group ($7 billion revenue), which includes A&M, Decca/London, Deutsche Grammophon, Geffen, Interscope, Island Def Jam, Motown, Philips, Rampagge, Universal, and others;
* Sony BMG Music Entertainment ($5 billion), which includes: Arista, (American) Columbia, Epic, J, Jive, LaFace, Ravenous, RCA and others;
* EMI Group ($4 billion), which includes Angel, Blue Note, Capitol, European Columbia, Elektrola, Odeon, Parlophone, Pathé Marconi, Positiva, Virgin and others;
* Warner Music Group (a.k.a. WEA) ($2.5 billion), which includes Asylum, Atlantic, Elektra, Erato, Heiress, Reprise, Rhino, Rykodisc, Sire, Sub Pop (49% Warner ownership), and others.
Let this inform your music purchasing choices appropriately.
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:3, Informative)
from a BPI label:
BPI Radar [magnetbox.com]
from a RIAA label:
RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com]
I haven't used the BPI one yet, but I use RIAAradar all the time. My advice, for what it's worth, is to support the independant labels by buying their stuff. On the other hand, if you want a physical copy of a RIAA/BPI album, consider buying it used.
A court said they broke the law (Score:2)
Please read your comment again, noting the part I've emphasized. These people broke the law, and were found to have done so by a court, not by some sort of recording industry shady dealing and barratry.
Now, you can bitch about h
Do they have court? (Score:2)
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
Re:Do they have court? (Score:5, Informative)
So in effect, the BPI are doing the same thing that anti-spammers do; ask the ISP to enforce their existing contract terms with the user, and terminate it for 'abuse'.
Once the contract is terminated, then the ISP is done. No further action would be taken by the ISP, so the courts don't get involved. Of course, the customer could start a civil suit against the ISP for breach of contract (good luck with that!), or breach of EU data privacy laws if the ISP handed personally identfying info over the BPI without a court-order. Note, I'm not a solicitor, so the previous paragraph could be complete rubbish, but it's how I understand it.
The BPI are a trade organisation, like the RIAA; no government powers at all. They have to go to court to pursue civil cases, or ask the police to investigate criminal cases, just like everyone else. This however is just one company asking another to enforce their contract against a 3rd party, i.e. the users. No doubt the ISP's will jump through hoops to do it though, they've not got a great history of standing up for their users against accusations that may or may not be true.
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
>Policies. Since the AUP's UK users agree to are pretty draconian in order to get
>internet access, the ISP has the right to terminate our accounts at any time
>based upon breach of them. Of course, the ISP's don't actually monitor the
>traffic as such, because then they might be expected to catch all of the dodgy
>traffic going across their wires.
And how would the ISP now if you breached the contract in this parti
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
Having seen my and some other peoples phone, internet and other (usually Direct Debit) service contracts, they usually have a clause that states something along the lines of "We withold the right to terminate the service/contract at any point". The principle being that if they want, they can stop providing the service and the contract ends at that point, if you have already paid for a period after that
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
Really? It's three clicks with my Internet banking service (Barclays, for reference). The problems come when the telephone company decides that you are in their debt and notifies the agency responsible for your credit rating. A better bet is to pay, then take them to the small claims court for breach of contract and get the money back.
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
If they terminated the contract without cause (ie you didn't cause them any harm), then they would almost certainly have to pro-rate any fees collected. It would probably be a simple matter in small-claims court to collect a partial refund.
In fact, most contracts I've read and written in e
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
>Debit) service contracts, they usually have a clause that states something along
>the lines of "We withold the right to terminate the service/contract at any
>point". The principle being that if they want, they can stop providing the
>service and the contract ends at that point, if you have already paid for a
>period after that time then your going to have trouble getting you money back.
Considering the UK is part
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
Speak for your own ISP's AUP; mine [eclipse.net.uk] isn't what I'd call draconian (scroll past the terms for the one month trial). In summary, my obligations are to obey the relevant laws, and not try to claim that it's Eclipse's fault if I get caught breaking one.
Re:Do they have court? (Score:2)
It's just a business refusing to serve you. If you feel they've done it unfairly, THEN you can sue THEM.
I wonder . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:3, Funny)
I would venture a guess that they would make claims that the distinct lack of piracy is causing them to lose money. After making those initial claims, I bet they would start a campaign to sue people who purchase large ammounts of albums legally from their local music stores. Once they sue and ruin their most loyal customers, they will revert to their "piracy bad" statements and start the wh
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2)
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2)
They have yet to prove a link between piracy and fewer sales. I suspect that pirates
Going after the offenders (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, in this case, they do appear to be going after the offenders and so good luck to them. I believe they do have a right to protect their copyright but I don't believe it should be at the expense of everyone, just those who are offending.
[1] Which (as a side "benefit") means you often cannot use your own legally purchased media in legally/morally accepted ways.
Re:Going after the offenders (Score:2)
ISPs are not going to like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ISPs are not going to like this (Score:2)
Yep, one of the local ADSL providers here advertising their "advanced" package: "Chatting and downloading a movie or music at the same time? No problem!"
I mean, "downloading a movie", I have never been able to download (as in, completely download, burn and view at a later time) legally.
ISPs move away from that practice in Sweden (Score:5, Interesting)
However in recent time people have been aware of the issue and some ISPs has gone against the practice.
Nowadays ISPs here are reluctant to be known as a party to disconnect you because of those reasons.
Customers simply move away from their services.
Re:ISPs move away from that practice in Sweden (Score:2)
Well the problem is simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps in the same way that a fast car ad advertises speeding. What after all is the point of a fast car when you can only drive as fast as everyone else?
ISP's might realize that there intrests are not the interests of the copyright holders. Same as xerox interests are not the interests of book publishers. If xerox made their copiers incapable of copying copyrighted works they might possibly find their entire market share collapsing faster then you can say "cheap chinese clones".
It reminds me a bit of those pay sex phone lines. Nobody likes them, banks hate doing business with porn companies. The phone company hates them because they are a hassle but both the banks and the phone company love the money they bring in. As long as you keep your company "clean" enough to touch they are happy to help you peddle smut.
Same with ISP's, while they would love to be just email and light web browwsing comapnies the momey is in p2p and porn. Nobody is going to need 24/7 super adsl to check their email.
AUPs need to go away (Score:2)
The most correct approach so far (Score:5, Interesting)
As a rule, if I really want something, I buy it. I would like to assume (and from what I hear it's generally true) that when people fully appreciate something or functionally use it, they buy it. That goes for software, music, movies... whatever... okay, I admit I don't buy porn... but anyway.
But if ever there was a "correct" approach to their handling, this would be it. Their [the clients'] anonymity is preserved. They don't get a criminal record. They don't pay thousands to defend themselves. They don't settle for large amounts of money. And in my guess, the worst they might initially get is an interruption of service as a warning and probably resume connectivity (after turning off sharing) shortly thereafter and lives go generally unharmed.
It's not that bad really.
Re:The most correct approach so far (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks! You've just entertained me for an evening.
I hope they give a little time before disconnect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope they give a little time before disconnec (Score:2)
Is this only in the US? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Is this only in the US? (Score:2)
There was a case [bbc.co.uk] a while back where someone sued an ISP when they didn't remove libellous Usenet posts which was settled out of court in favour of the plaintiff. I'm not sure of the effect that has had on ISPs, or if the law has changed since.
Re:Is this only in the US? (Score:2)
At the moment this is to confined to blocking porn, but once all the ISPs have caved in, the infrastructure for more general censorship will be in place. And the list of sites to be censored is supplied to the ISPs in an encrypted fo
Why shouldn't ISPs turn a blind eye? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the article, it quotes Peter Jamieson, BPI chairman:
Is it really in the interest of ISPs to not turn a blind eye? As I see it, it is potentially against their interest: First of all, ISPs are barely, if it all, affected music piracy. In fact they may even benefit from 'pirates' choosing to use their service because they, for example, don't block P2P ports (although on the flipside, the increased bandwidth usage of P2P may be to their detriment). If I recall correctly, Tiscali attempted to set up a music store of some kind, which was thwarted, presumably by the music industry, so ISPs can't get in the way of effects of piracy, even if they wanted to! I'm fairly confident that piracy having a direct negative impact on the business is not a reason for why it is disallowed in their EULAs (legal requirement, minimisation of legal action against them are probably more likely reasons).
So even if ISPs kindly decided to be altruistic towards their fellow big business, the BPI, and help root out big-time pirates, they would have to go to all the trouble of trawling through all of its paying customer's activity, invading their privacy, handing them in as criminals and then loosing their custom. That seems like a great deal to give up for no gain!
I would say this actually helps the ISPs (Score:2)
Unequivocal? (Score:3, Interesting)
"We are providing unequivocal evidence of copyright infringement via their services"
I'd like to see that evidence. The article suggests it's IP addresses associated with uploads. At worst it's simply the IP address and at best surely it could only be a list of IP addresses and what they uploaded - i.e, IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx uploaded (file) on (date and time) to (server).
Is that enough to be 'unequivocal'? And if so, since the article also suggests they're only after those who upload a lot ('It was unacceptable for ISPs to turn a "blind eye to industrial-scale copyright infringement", said BPI chairman Peter Jamieson.') why aren't they going after these guys for damages in court instead of going the easy route of simply shutting them off? After all, it's likely they'll simply go to another ISP ...
Re:Unequivocal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Which makes one wonder how they know someone has uploaded "a lot".
Re:Unequivocal? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, you could simply download a lot from them, making a note of their IP address. Any IP that uploads more than X to you, you go after.
Yes, a lot of them will be dynamic IPs, in which case the ISP can simply reply to that effect and that's the end of it. However, a lot of people have static IP addresses - I've had one for about 5 years now at no extra cost, and a lot of ISPs hand them out either by default or on request, often for free.
Shor
Re:Unequivocal? (Score:2)
Re:Unequivocal? (Score:2)
At worst it's simply the IP address and at best surely it could only be a list of IP addresses and what they uploaded - i.e, IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx uploaded (file) on (date and time) to (server).
ISPs (at least in th UK, and I think in the USA and elsewhere) are required to log which customer was using which IP address at what time for tracability reasons. This means that the information above would quite easily identify a household, and I imagine it is a short jump from there with appropriate legal
Customers Pay the Cash (Score:2)
BPI has identified 17 Tiscali IP addresses and 42 Cable & Wireless IP addresses which were used to upload "significant quantities of music owned by BPI members".
Stuff them. I'd just give a two-fingered salute and move
Tiscali? (Score:2)
C't speculated that one of the reasons for encouraging file sharers to use another service was to reduce bandwidth consumption, another to redu
checks or abuses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pot - Kettle - Black (Score:3, Interesting)
Proxies? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:optical delusion ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:damn dyslexia (Score:4, Funny)
Please don't impinge on the good name of whores
Re:C&W (Bulldog) and Tiscali (Score:2, Insightful)