Illegal downloaders 'face UK ban'

[happychappy]

People in the UK who go online and illegally download music and films may have their internet access cut under plans the government is considering.

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm)

[Jamesrt2004]

I'd like to see how they implement this :/ and keep track of it I'm sure the p2p networks will be like talk to the hand

and this will only make people with laptops etc, just go round and using other peoples wireless etc to download

[Pinacolada]

And how they are going to cut off people from wi-fi and wimax ? maybe some kind of electromagnetic prison ? or will they cut off your power line ?

How about cutting off people from cigarettes ? and making smoking illegal. P2P don't kill anybody - smoking kills millions.Economy lose much more money through smoking that will ever through P2P - I mean, so many people die - and then they don't pay taxes or work.

[Kai Robinson]

I see the state is poking into affairs that are none of its concern. We'd become just as bad as china.

I'd never sign up with such a mainstream ISP anyway...and if i was 'caught', just up and move to a different ISP.

I download TV, rather than music - if its already been aired in public, for free, then i see no problem with taking my copy, especially as i pay a license fee.

[Origin_Unknown]

somehow i can't see this going through without it going to the house of commons first

[perry_78]

This whole "piracy suxor" notion that corporations and states have has gone from amusing to retarded. Why should ISPs be responsible for the activities of its users? Surely, they would lose out on profits from such a scheme.

[LowRun]

We're heading in that direction too in France unfortunately :shakes:

[Pete]

There will always be ways and means to avoid being caught. The gioverment here has sunk and sunk even more now with Brown in the cabnet.

However for them to do any of it it'll be a breach of the current contract you hold with your ISP.

I heard this on the raido at work and checked my contract with my ISP and it says nothing about looking at what i use my net for and what i do with it, so im sure if someone was to be caught they'd soon be a battle back.

[nemrod]

We're heading in that direction too in France unfortunately :shakes:
Better than that we have the copyright on the idea! So we will cut the internet for the uk gvt who steal those idea!

[nemrod]

This whole "piracy suxor" notion that corporations and states have has gone from amusing to retarded. Why should ISPs be responsible for the activities of its users? Surely, they would lose out on profits from such a scheme.

It's not so stupid... Against piracy, action like in us are very unpopular.
(like Jammie Thomas - 24 files = fine 200 000$). Main problem for gouvernement is actual laws are too strong, you can't send to jail 1/3 of your population.
so they try to find new law which could be used. Obviously geek will always find a way, but the point is most stop.
And for the isp (Why should ISPs be responsible for the activities of its users?), sorry but this is a joke, in my country, most have play with piracy: tv spot like "free music to download" etc.. Some isp have underground usenet channel on their channel...

[D4rkn3ss]

i know i know.. it sucks to live in third world country but.. at least we don't have laws for this kind of stuff :D

[Cobalt]

Start using encryption on your torrents. Problem sorted.

[Serra]

You know what? Anyone who feels bad for people who download illegal content and get caught should go jump in a lake. It is currently an illegal practice and therefore demands fitting punishments, and I think this is a sterling idea.

Here's where the replies begin. To help head them off, let me explain my position. Let's say that you actually understand something about IP, copyrights, and the music/movie industry (and I'll guarantee most people who read this don't, beyond the basic framework and stereotypes). Given that as a requirement for an opinion, and assuming you have the opinion is that freely sharing things that the producers tell you is against their EULA is acceptable, you have two choices:
1. Download content illegally
2. Do all that you can to express your opinions about this and have it made legal, which is within your rights, and act like a law-abiding citizen until you can download content legally.

My point is that regardless of where you sit on the fence of content availability, or how many different purchase models you can think of, until the day comes when we have grown globally into this new method of thinking about product delivery, you are violating the law and deserve to be punished as such. You want change faster? Don't just sit on your backside and download Photoshop to stick it to the man, get up and write a letter to your MP/Congressman/whathaveyou.

[nemrod]

Start using encryption on your torrents. Problem sorted.

Not solved, if this is the same law than those discuss in France, the point is massive download with big tracker sites. (so basically just ip collect on p2p network) Encryption, like ftp and so on will only be small communauty, end of the massive piracy, problem solved.

[LowRun]

Start using encryption on your torrents. Problem sorted.

As far as i know encryption is only to prevent your ISP to have a look at your packets and limit your bandwidth if they are P2P. You still need to expose your IP address to share stuff, this is where they bite you. I use Protowall to make their work harder and keep my arse safe as they even tried to scare peeps that downloaded the Call of Juarez demo on torrents here along with peeps that downloaded the game and to get easy money from them with prosecution threats.

[Jamesrt2004]

Not solved, if this is the same law than those discuss in France, the point is massive download with big tracker sites. (so basically just ip collect on p2p network) Encryption, like ftp and so on will only be small communauty, end of the massive piracy, problem solved.


Wouldn't the P2p sites just base it's servers in a country that doesn't have these laws so therefore connecting to them isn't illegal as such

or am I wrong :confused: ?

[Cobalt]

If they can't tell what the content I'm sharing is then they have no right to cut me off. What if I'm downloading open office or linux (which I do fairly often)? In fact most of what I share is perfectly legal and there are no films or music among my torrents. IMO this is just like the wire tapping issue. I want them to already have evidence that I'm sharing illegal files before they start looking at my packets.

On the other hand the content I do download "illegally" it either gets paid for later e.g. when I game isn't out in Europe yet because of :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty distribution rates or deleted e.g. I've played this game for 30 minutes and I'm already bored. The second situation wouldn't arise if game stores would accept returns like they used to.

[LowRun]

If they can't tell what the content I'm sharing is then they have no right to cut me off. What if I'm downloading open office or linux (which I do fairly often)? In fact most of what I share is perfectly legal and there are no films or music among my torrents. IMO this is just like the wire tapping issue. I want them to already have evidence that I'm sharing illegal files before they start looking at my packets.

On the other hand the content I do download "illegally" it either gets paid for later e.g. when I game isn't out in Europe yet because of :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty distribution rates or deleted e.g. I've played this game for 30 minutes and I'm already bored. The second situation wouldn't arise if game stores would accept returns like they used to.

Currently your ISP is eventually looking at your packets for himself and for QoS matters, identifying illegal content sharing is usually done by specialized outfits at torrents servers level or with various other tools, they will then pass the data to your ISP that will issue a cease and desist warning or cut your access. No need to sniff your packets to know what you share as you make it public to all the others peers.

[gallardo]

Don't just sit on your backside and download Photoshop to stick it to the man, get up and write a letter to your MP/Congressman/whathaveyou.

You know those "In Soviet Russia... " jokes?
Well, in post-commie Romania a letter to our whathaveus will end up being worthless. As in... worth-less-than-toiletpaper.

Edit: Ok, so I'm offtopic here because Romania has a 75% piracy rate anyway. Yeah... mostly companies have legit software here. MP3s... I honestly don't know anyone actually paying a company for an MP3. Maybe paying a friend to make you an MP3 CD or something, but that's about it.

[Clint]

What disturbes me quite a lot is that ppl gladly uses the name "piracy" for copyright infringement.

Now, for me piracy is something that is taking places outside the Phillipines where they actually plunder ships and kill the crew before sinking it.

It is a bit hard for me to see a parallell with killing people and copy a few too many pages out of a book.:shakes:

..beacuse that exacly what it is, downloading a MP3 or copying a few too many pages out of a book for study purposes is copyright infringement.

...not stealing, and certainly not plundering and killing people.

[nemrod]

What disturbes me quite a lot is that ppl gladly uses the name "piracy" for copyright infringement.

Now, for me piracy is something that is taking places outside the Phillipines where they actually plunder ships and kill the crew before sinking it.

It is a bit hard for me to see a parallell with killing people and copy a few too many pages out of a book.:shakes:

..beacuse that exacly what it is, downloading a MP3 or copying a few too many pages out of a book for study purposes is copyright infringement.

...not stealing, and certainly not plundering and killing people.

Sure, but piracy is an old keyword in the internet langage and has someting "romantic". I'm much more allergic to "stealing" stupidity which I have always to support during long minutes when I watch a dvd I have paid...

[twilyth]

And how they are going to cut off people from wi-fi and wimax ? maybe some kind of electromagnetic prison ? or will they cut off your power line ?

How about cutting off people from cigarettes ? and making smoking illegal. P2P don't kill anybody - smoking kills millions.Economy lose much more money through smoking that will ever through P2P - I mean, so many people die - and then they don't pay taxes or work.
you'd have to start war driving which can be a bit tedious if you want to dl 10 or 20 gig at a time.

As for smoking, the cigarette companies have lobbyists and tons of cash to spread around - I don't think there are any P2P companies out there with that kind of clout.


My point is that regardless of where you sit on the fence of content availability, or how many different purchase models you can think of, until the day comes when we have grown globally into this new method of thinking about product delivery, you are violating the law and deserve to be punished as such. You want change faster? Don't just sit on your backside and download Photoshop to stick it to the man, get up and write a letter to your MP/Congressman/whathaveyou.
dl'ing copy protected material is generally regarded as theft. And technically it is. I think there is a better chance of getting pot legalized than there is of removing any restrictions on downloads.

Laws like these actually help the pirates since only the more technical users will be able to skirt the restrictions. But since the market for cheap knock-offs will never go away, these laws will bring more people into the marketplace as they decide not to attempt dl's that can be traced back to them. So you'll have off shore web sites popping up that offer the sale of popular music and video at a fraction of the cost. Someone I know needed to get some training videos for a certification class that would have cost hundreds of dollars. She bought them from ebay for a fraction of that. They were advertised as used but in fact they were copies. It will be a gold mine for boot leggers.


Start using encryption on your torrents. Problem sorted.

Not solved, if this is the same law than those discuss in France, the point is massive download with big tracker sites. (so basically just ip collect on p2p network) Encryption, like ftp and so on will only be small communauty, end of the massive piracy, problem solved.
The easiest way around this is usenet. Except most people don't have the patience to learn how to use it. But an encrypted usenet connection makes you immune to prosecution - unless at some point the government gets access to their records and the usenet service kept a list of everything you dl'ed. And even then, until they could actually find the stuff on your hdd, I don't think they would have a case. Encrypted file systems for the win.

[ak_47_boy]

Get some people together and go rip up a few dozen major optic lines.

A few million people died in WW2 to save Europe's freedom. Why would you freely allow your government to control your information?

[gallardo]

What disturbes me quite a lot is that ppl gladly uses the name "piracy" for copyright infringement.

Now, for me piracy is something that is taking places outside the Phillipines where they actually plunder ships and kill the crew before sinking it.

It is a bit hard for me to see a parallell with killing people and copy a few too many pages out of a book.:shakes:

..beacuse that exacly what it is, downloading a MP3 or copying a few too many pages out of a book for study purposes is copyright infringement.

...not stealing, and certainly not plundering and killing people.

I'm gonna start searching your posts for references to the word "mouse" and for every time you used the word "mouse" in a sense that involves computers and not the cheese-eating rodent you get a fish slap to the face.

[Fairydust]

dl'ing copy protected material is generally regarded as theft. And technically it is. I think there is a better chance of getting pot legalized than there is of removing any restrictions on downloads.

Technically, theft requires depriving the property to the owner. I guess "committing copyright infringement" and "illegal copying" doesn't quite roll of the tongue as easy.

[nemrod]

Get some people together and go rip up a few dozen major optic lines.

A few million people died in WW2 to save Europe's freedom. Why would you freely allow your government to control your information?

Freedom of what? Copy at no cost the work of somebody else. This is your conception of Freedom?

[bro20000]

If i cant download there no point of having the internet anymore!

[nemrod]

If i cant download there no point of having the internet anymore!

By reading this thread and posting this message, you do something else. :shrug:

[initialised]

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm)Virgin already 'Police' this by throttling speeds if you download over a set amout (package dependent) between 16:00 and 21:00. I doubt they will have to take their 'Fair Use' policy any further, afterall, you can't say that Torrent traffic is illegal per se. The same probably applies to all ISPs as like Bro20000 said what is the point of the internet if I can't download.

BTW they are considering putting pot back up to Class B (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/cannabis-reclassification/), its currently Class C like grey market prescription only medication, effectively decriminalised. They did the same with MDMA (A to B back to A) and closed a loophole that allowed the sale of magic mushrooms and growing kits in the UK recently. Didn't the world's governments learn anything from the USA's failed attempts at prohibition?

[Omastar]

You know what? Anyone who feels bad for people who download illegal content and get caught should go jump in a lake. It is currently an illegal practice and therefore demands fitting punishments, and I think this is a sterling idea.

Here's where the replies begin. To help head them off, let me explain my position. Let's say that you actually understand something about IP, copyrights, and the music/movie industry (and I'll guarantee most people who read this don't, beyond the basic framework and stereotypes). Given that as a requirement for an opinion, and assuming you have the opinion is that freely sharing things that the producers tell you is against their EULA is acceptable, you have two choices:
1. Download content illegally
2. Do all that you can to express your opinions about this and have it made legal, which is within your rights, and act like a law-abiding citizen until you can download content legally.

My point is that regardless of where you sit on the fence of content availability, or how many different purchase models you can think of, until the day comes when we have grown globally into this new method of thinking about product delivery, you are violating the law and deserve to be punished as such. You want change faster? Don't just sit on your backside and download Photoshop to stick it to the man, get up and write a letter to your MP/Congressman/whathaveyou.

So if you disagree with the methods that corporations use to disseminate content both in retail form and in downloadable form (eg- rootkits, DRM/anti-piracy schemes, arbitrary rip and usage limits, etc.), you should just play your old vinyls (assuming you're old enough to HAVE a collection) and be happy, or totally dissociate yourself from the music industry altogether? Sometimes the only way to make the other party see the light is to challenge their methods in an illegal way.

Why is it legal for a company to strongarm my ISP or another channel into giving them my personal information to monitor my bandwidth usage? Why, then, is it also legal for the RIAA and its subcontents to use these early '50s McCarthyistic practices of naming names and blackballing people and institutions that don't submit and cough up grossly unfair amounts of money to keep the RIAA satiated?

Don't you get it? It's not about bringing ANYONE to justice with the RIAA. IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY. Why do you think they're always champing at the bit to push up the maximum allowable fine for downloading a song? Because it's more money to line their pockets, and help them push this nebulous agenda of 'protecting the artist'. The artists impacted by your downloading do not see A PENNY of the settlement money the RIAA is awarded. Where does it go? Who is it 'helping'?

Biggest load of BS ever perpetrated.

[Syn.]

As a UK citizen it just makes me wonder one thing. How will they know the difference between a legal mp3 file and illegal mp3 file?

Besides that i see this going the same way other censorship programs went.

[Veritas.no]

Get some people together and go rip up a few dozen major optic lines.

A few million people died in WW2 to save Europe's freedom. Why would you freely allow your government to control your information?


Geee, you make it sound like they are gonna take down the whole internet. Are they taking you freedom when they put up speedsigns to?

[Syn.]

Geee, you make it sound like they are gonna take down the whole internet. Are they taking you freedom when they put up speedsigns to?

They would if they would randomly make you pull over and check your baggage just because you are on the road. Which is the equivalent of what is being proposed for the Internet.

[nemrod]

As a UK citizen it just makes me wonder one thing. How will they know the difference between a legal mp3 file and illegal mp3 file?

Besides that i see this going the same way other censorship programs went.

If like the french law, monitor p2p, take the ip of the sender. And the sender is in an illegal position.

[Veritas.no]

They would if they would randomly make you pull over and check your baggage just because you are on the road. Which is the equivalent of what is being proposed for the Internet.

Yeah, good point, like when they pull you over to check if you've been drinking, check your seatbelt/driverslicens. Or when they stop you at randomly at the border to see if you have anything elegal with you. I can see where your going with this.

[Syn.]

Yeah, good point, like when they pull you over to check if you've been drinking, check your seatbelt/driverslicens. Or when they stop you at randomly at the border to see if you have anything elegal with you. I can see where your going with this.

Throw your sarcasm at me as much as you wont it would help if you actually read what i wrote.

They would if they would randomly make you pull over and check your baggage just because you are on the road. Which is the equivalent of what is being proposed for the Internet.


To pull you over on the road police must have a valid reason which they can prove in court. Now read what i said previously and hopefully this time you will get the point.

[nemrod]

To pull you over on the road police must have a valid reason which they can prove in court. Now read what i said previously and hopefully this time you will get the point.

If I understand what you mean, I will use an other image:
Take a cd in a store, put it in your pocket in front of a policeman. Does he have valid reason?
So this is nearly the same.

But, there is still some legal point, like an ip is not one person, and what happen in case of illegal use of your connexion.

[Veritas.no]

But I like my sarcasm :/

Well, I don't know how it works in the uk, but here in norway police stand by the road randomly and check if your speeding, randomly wave cars in so they can check them if they have been drinking, check that people have their seatbelt on and so.

Any way, I don't think they are gonna check anyone randomly. They probarbly gonna look at what IPs you download from and look into your trafic if they find something fishy.

[jabski]

saw this on a newspapers website comment section.
These copywrite laws are a disgrace - just because someone spent ten minutes writing a song doesn't mean they should be able to make money from it. A diligent cleaner in a hospital who helps prevent a kidney transplant patient from getting MRSA doesn't expect a payment every time that person now takes a pee.

lol :)

[twin_savage]

how can piracy be stealing if you are not depriving the company/artist/whatever of anything? all the company/artist/whatever can say is that you could have potentially bought the thing you dl'ed, when in fact you may not have. they lost a potential sale, not an actual sale.

what if a company decides to sue you because you said in public that you did not like their product, they may have lost potential sales from this. better yet what if you see a review that rates a companies product poorly and this convinces you not to but that product? should the review site be sued for saying the wrong thing? were getting into socialism here.

- yes i know this is taking it kind of to the extreme (this only applies to digital stuff)

[nemrod]

how can piracy be stealing if you are not depriving the company/artist/whatever of anything? all the company/artist/whatever can say is that you could have potentially bought the thing you dl'ed, when in fact you may not have. they lost a potential sale, not an actual sale.


It 's the general argument. I'm agree with you first it's not stealing. Second i'm agree that 1 copy = 1 sale not done is false.

Now some maths 10 copy = 1 sale not done, then 10 millions copy = 1 million sales not done. The problem isn't individual piracy, the problem is mass piracy. It's so easy that a "baby" could be able to download. Just 2 click and you have all you want. What they try isn't to stop piracy, just to stop mass piracy.

[Syn.]

If I understand what you mean, I will use an other image:
Take a cd in a store, put it in your pocket in front of a policeman. Does he have valid reason?
So this is nearly the same.

But, there is still some legal point, like an ip is not one person, and what happen in case of illegal use of your connexion.

Putting a CD in your pockett is not a crime in it self. Walking out of the store with the CD still in your pockett withouth paying for it is.

So the questions i have are:

Why was the policeman in the store?
Why was he following/looking at you?

Cutting off a person who shares illegal files is all well and good but i want to know the manner in which they will prove that the person was downloading illegal files in the first place.

But I like my sarcasm :/

Well, I don't know how it works in the uk, but here in norway police stand by the road randomly and check if your speeding, randomly wave cars in so they can check them if they have been drinking, check that people have their seatbelt on and so.

Any way, I don't think they are gonna check anyone randomly. They probarbly gonna look at what IPs you download from and look into your trafic if they find something fishy.

Police can pull you over and check that you are road legal but for him to check what is inside your boot he must have a reason for it. Remember it is meant to be innocent until proven guilty.

[nemrod]

Why was the policeman in the store?
Why was he following/looking at you?



Don't know UK law. But aren't you champions of video camera in the streets?
So is there something really different in monitoring real street or information highways?

[Syn.]

Don't know UK law. But aren't you champions of video camera in the streets?
So is there something really different in monitoring real street or information highways?

The cameras are only placed in areas with very high crime rate, usually the ones in the top 10 in the country. You still dont understand that i am not arguing against cutting pirates off the Internet but i am asking how will they know the difference?

Currently under FUP every time i start downloading for longer then 5 min my connection is throttled down. The system doesn't seem to care that i am downloading a game legally off Steam that i purchased.

[Veritas.no]

So what you are saying is that as long as noone sees you breaking the law, the police can't demand anything of you. Sorry to say, that's not how things work.
And if you download something from thepiratebay (IP), then they have a reson to watch what your doing.

[nemrod]

The cameras are only placed in areas with very high crime rate, usually the ones in the top 10 in the country. You still dont understand that i am not arguing against cutting pirates off the Internet but i am asking how will they know the difference?


So this is the same, monitoring the p2p is monitoring 'areas with very high crime rate'
Don't know if this is the same law in UK. (but this is what is said here)
For this law in France, the first point is to monitor p2p, then take the ip of uploader, (then see the level, few files or a lot) then send a mail, then if again catch cut the connexion. This is not related to quality of service, it's cut or not cut, neither analyse of your connexion trafic (in a first step).

[LowRun]

Currently under FUP every time i start downloading for longer then 5 min my connection is throttled down. The system doesn't seem to care that i am downloading a game legally off Steam that i purchased.

You keep on mixing up QoS done by your ISP to avoid bandwidth constriction due to excessive P2P traffic (illegal or not) and monitoring P2P networks done by private outfits looking for illegal sharing.

[DeathReborn]

The cameras are only placed in areas with very high crime rate, usually the ones in the top 10 in the country. You still dont understand that i am not arguing against cutting pirates off the Internet but i am asking how will they know the difference?

Currently under FUP every time i start downloading for longer then 5 min my connection is throttled down. The system doesn't seem to care that i am downloading a game legally off Steam that i purchased.

They do not put up CCTV only in high/medium crime areas.

The next street from me had CCTV installed by the council last year despite there being practically no crime in the area. When we asked the Chief Executive (friends in high places :P) of the council about it he said they had to install them there because they had put up less than they were given. It had nothing to do with crime, just making sure they can tell the government they put all of them up.

It's the same with speed cameras around here. There's a 6 mile stretch with 11 speed cameras, yes 11. When they checked the amount of accidents along that stretch in the 10 years prior to them going up, it was less than the national average. The figure hasn't changed at all since they went up so why did they put them there, because of accidents/speeding?? Nope, just where the government says they should be.

The only way they can get this to work is to scrap or rewrite the Data Protection Act, as it prohibits them from finding out what we download/upload without a court order. The Data Protection Act in full can be found at any local library in the UK or online, it pays to read it sometimes.

[initialised]

At-a-Point speed checks have little or no impact on accident rates but Speed-over-Distance systems do (but are much more expensive).

True about the DPA, it gets in the way of so much...

As far as I am aware it will work as a three strikes and your offline rule so it you don't sort out your privacy/security after the second warning you are simply paying stupid tax (much like those caught by At-a-Point speed traps).

[del_fuego]

The BBC pushing a story about p2p and illegall downloading now that they have their iplayer and own p2p network up. Funny that, eh.

I never use p2p networks (why would i want my ip publically listed?), rapidshare and encrypted usenet all the way. Lets see them take that on.

If you have to use torrents then use a proxy at least.

[Syn.]

They do not put up CCTV only in high/medium crime areas.

The next street from me had CCTV installed by the council last year despite there being practically no crime in the area. When we asked the Chief Executive (friends in high places :P) of the council about it he said they had to install them there because they had put up less than they were given. It had nothing to do with crime, just making sure they can tell the government they put all of them up.

It's the same with speed cameras around here. There's a 6 mile stretch with 11 speed cameras, yes 11. When they checked the amount of accidents along that stretch in the 10 years prior to them going up, it was less than the national average. The figure hasn't changed at all since they went up so why did they put them there, because of accidents/speeding?? Nope, just where the government says they should be.

The only way they can get this to work is to scrap or rewrite the Data Protection Act, as it prohibits them from finding out what we download/upload without a court order. The Data Protection Act in full can be found at any local library in the UK or online, it pays to read it sometimes.

Sounds like you just have dodgy council. The DPA is what i wanted to know because how will they know what downloads are legal and what arent, what laws are involved etc.

So this is the same, monitoring the p2p is monitoring 'areas with very high crime rate'
Don't know if this is the same law in UK. (but this is what is said here)
For this law in France, the first point is to monitor p2p, then take the ip of uploader, (then see the level, few files or a lot) then send a mail, then if again catch cut the connexion. This is not related to quality of service, it's cut or not cut, neither analyse of your connexion trafic (in a first step).

I give up m8, you just dont seem to be able to understand my question.

[DeathReborn]

Sounds like you just have dodgy council. The DPA is what i wanted to know because how will they know what downloads are legal and what arent, what laws are involved etc.

It's not just one council, it's all over the country that similar things have taken place.

As for Laws governing the access they'd be able to have there's at least 1 EU law that covers it so at the very least they'd be looking at a possible 2 year run through the courts on each case (if the ppl decide to take it to europe).

[Syn.]

It's not just one council, it's all over the country that similar things have taken place.

As for Laws governing the access they'd be able to have there's at least 1 EU law that covers it so at the very least they'd be looking at a possible 2 year run through the courts on each case (if the ppl decide to take it to europe).

I whole of London there are about 200 Speed Cameras, only about 50 are active at one time.

So please if you know any other council in UK that is doing crazy things name them.

[ak_47_boy]

Geee, you make it sound like they are gonna take down the whole internet. Are they taking you freedom when they put up speedsigns to?
Where does it end? The government will take more and more power, it all adds up until they can do anything they want. Might take 100 years, but it will happen. People are too stupid to realize it and stop it.

[DeathReborn]

I whole of London there are about 200 Speed Cameras, only about 50 are active at one time.

So please if you know any other council in UK that is doing crazy things name them.

Portsmouth, Bishops Stortford, Straford, Prestbury, Littlehampton, Swadlincote, Leatherhead, Lowestoft & Andover to name just a few.

All those councils/local authorities have intiated controversial, un-needed & unpopular CCTV or Speed Camera projects.

[fornowagain]

What with that and getting arrested/DNA stored for using MP3 players and tasering children we're doing well.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=98741&in_page_id=34
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=479341&in_page_id=1770

[nemrod]

I give up m8, you just dont seem to be able to understand my question.

Where is your problem?
Imagine you upload the last madonna album. Are you the copyright holder? No, so you have not that right. By nature to upload other should know your ip at least on most usual p2p apllication. So you give the proof and the ip.

[Clint]

What disturbes me quite a lot is that ppl gladly uses the name "piracy" for copyright infringement.

Now, for me piracy is something that is taking places outside the Phillipines where they actually plunder ships and kill the crew before sinking it.

It is a bit hard for me to see a parallell with killing people and copy a few too many pages out of a book.:shakes:

..beacuse that exacly what it is, downloading a MP3 or copying a few too many pages out of a book for study purposes is copyright infringement.

...not stealing, and certainly not plundering and killing people.

I'm gonna start searching your posts for references to the word "mouse" and for every time you used the word "mouse" in a sense that involves computers and not the cheese-eating rodent you get a fish slap to the face.

When you compare a mouse as a pointing device and a rodent really doesn't hold the same weight as when I compare copying a few songs from a disc to your own HD and murdering, raping and plundering.

If you can't see the relevance here I feel sorry for you, and I think even a few slaps won't help in your case...:shrug:

[RADCOM]

They would if they would randomly make you pull over and check your baggage just because you are on the road. Which is the equivalent of what is being proposed for the Internet.
Do you remember the "SuS" laws lmao Seriously though have a look at the UGC (user generated content) on the BBC site..... most people are not in favour and like the poll tax we will not put up with draconian ISP spying.

[Iconyu]

The ISP's told them to bugger off, too much effort for ISP's to identify if the actual download was copyright infringement (ISP's can mess around when data carries a certain pattern or a bandwidth behaviour is identified, but actually working out that data is subject to copyright...) and legally it's a little too close to constant phone tapping for any ISP to touch it unless forced.

It was just a suggestion made by people that had no idea of what they were asking.