"Three Strikes" To Go Ahead In Britain

[Geoff]

As per the Slashdot article that has a lot of pertinent links:

 

Lord Peter Mandelson has carefully ignored the Gowers Report and the Carter Report, instead taking the advice of his good friend David Geffen and announcing that 'three strikes and you're out' will become law in Britain. The Open Rights Group has, of course, hit the roof. Oh, and never mind MI5 and the police pointing out that widespread encryption will become norm, hampering their efforts to keep up with little things like impending terrorist atrocities. Still, worth it to stop a few Lily Allen tracks being shared, right?

[pete]

Guess Labour really don't want to stay in power, huh?

[FN-GM]

Can they force the ISP's to agree to this?

 

All this will to is lead to people cracking others WIFI then downloading. As a result another household will be getting letters etc.

 

There are ways aroound being moniotored. You can even make it look like you in another country. It takes longer to download files but it's worth it really

[localzuk]

I don't think this really will stand up to EU scrutiny - it allows a punishment without trial. What is so wrong with using the court system to pursue people?

[ZeroHour]

It grates me too because in France they at least got a benefit for the people with the deal (quicker dvd releases etc and better deals) but Mandy has only got them to really agree to let us do what we other countries have as default which is fair use rights. Fair use rights should have been allowed without this deal.

[torledo]

Hasn't Mandelson had two strikes already?

 

......

[powdarrmonkey]

Can they force the ISP's to agree to this?

 

If it's passed into law, of course. And given the technical awareness of the majority of our esteemed MPs, it's a very likely outcome

 

All this will to is lead to people cracking others WIFI then downloading. As a result another household will be getting letters etc.

 

Correct.

 

I don't think this really will stand up to EU scrutiny - it allows a punishment without trial. What is so wrong with using the court system to pursue people?

 

+1. It's an extremely unfair way to go about it.

[Dos_Box]

Guess Labour really don't want to stay in power, huh?

 

Some might say they are introducing 'slash and burn' tactics where they know that they are on the way out in the next election. Now they can introduce unpopular legislation with the next govt taking the blame for their effects.

[Guest Guest]

I don't think this really will stand up to EU scrutiny - it allows a punishment without trial. What is so wrong with using the court system to pursue people?

 

I was only reading yesterday that the EU were backing down on it and will allow its members to do whatever the feck they like in regards to stopping the big bad file sharers

 

Ill see if i can find it.

[pete]

Some might say they are introducing 'slash and burn' tactics where they know that they are on the way out in the next election. Now they can introduce unpopular legislation with the next govt taking the blame for their effects.

 

Ah, standard Dubya exit tactics? In .us the incoming president can cancel any last-minute stupid legislation passed by the outgoing one. Does the same apply under UK law?

[FN-GM]

I am not really clued up on politics. - What are the other parties views on this issue?

[Guest Guest]

It would seem that the BBC have changed their article. Ive found a snippet on another site Europe backs down on piracy plans The Plummet Onions

 

the European Parliament has dropped an amendment to its package of telecom legislation that would have required that countries get court approval to take steps like cutting off internet services to persistent file sharers (music still being the biggest portion of shared files).

 

BBC NEWS | Technology | Europe mulls file-sharing plans

 

Says basically the same thing but slightly watered down

[localzuk]

The thing is, regardless of any extra laws they bring in to tell EU member countries what to do, this law still flies in the face of human rights law - Article 6, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence etc... Not to mention international law - namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10.

 

Any system which simply tells you you're doing something wrong, then can punish you without a trial is against those rules.

 

If it is operated like the on the spot penalty notices system, whereby you can take the fine or go to court and fight it (whilst the fine etc... is put on hold) then that might work, but it has to be able to go to court, without having to actually go to an appeals stage.

[FN-GM]

The thing with this is its all avout the tax.

 

If someone downloads say a film from a torrent instead of purchasing it. The government will then missout on the tax on that sale.

[gshaw]

Those who really want to will keep doing it and find more technical solutions, simple answer to a simple question is to reduce greed at the content producer's end but that would never happen would it

 

As said above watch out for widespread encyption... now if the law agencies try and crack that traffic is that breach of privacy etc?

[Haptic]

what i would like to know is how they will know the difference between an illegal torrent and a completley legal one

[Theblacksheep]

The thing with this is its all avout the tax.

 

If someone downloads say a film from a torrent instead of purchasing it. The government will then missout on the tax on that sale.

 

No proof that: download = sale.

[Guest richard_s]

what i would like to know is how they will know the difference between an illegal torrent and a completley legal one

 

I would like to know this as well.

[FN-GM]

@ theblacksheep can you tell me what you mean please? The majority of people that torrent copyright projected content have no intentions of buying it

[ZeroHour]

I think people are getting a little confused, the way I think it works is like America,

A RIAA type group find X torrent of illegal music

They run their torrent client and log all IP addresses connected to tracker in relation to that torrent

They then filter to only UK IP's and then send the 1/2/3rd warnings to the user through notification of the ISP

after third they move to disconnect you, at this point you can appeal to Ofcom and they will rule on the ban.

If you lose this appeal you can appeal again within 20 days.

 

Its not a case of the ISP monitoring you, the RIAA/Gov will do that possibly.

No one has said though yet how long the ban will be for? a year or what?

[powdarrmonkey]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2009/10/28/P2PFlowchart.pdf

[Theblacksheep]

@ theblacksheep can you tell me what you mean please? The majority of people that torrent copyright projected content have no intentions of buying it

 

Sorry for the confusion, thats what I meant, a download doesn't equal a sale.... so no tax is lost, because they probably wouldnt buy it at those overinflated prices.

[FN-GM]

Does anyone know if this works. - https://torrentprivacy.com/ - If it does just sign upto that and the job is done.

 

Also couldn't you just move to another ISP if you are banned? Or could you just open another broadband account in your partners name?

 

Also if they monitor the IP addresses on a tracker such as the pirate bay they would be breaking the use policy. If the tracker owners wanted to could they take them to court?

Edited October 29, 2009 by FN-GM

[Haptic]

doesnt peerguardian stop the mpaa and the riaa following your connection ?

[ZeroHour]

doesnt peerguardian stop the mpaa and the riaa following your connection ?

 

Nope, but it can help but its only a ip filter, they all have ways around it easily.

 

Tracking users on a tracker wouldnt break any terms tbh as its illegal activity. TPB has no idea who the *agents* are.