Echo! Have you cleaned your place/picked up food!?
Ahem, sorry.
I've heard/read plenty of accounts of torrents off of pirate bay containing spyware/malware but as far as the pirate bay itself doing shady things (other than, you know, being a giant repository for torrents) I've never really seen anything.
Interesting enough this has received absolutely zero coverage in the Netherlands. :? This worries me, they're pretty good in The Hague about sneaking through laws before anyone figures out wtf is going on.
Well clear the pirate bay aren't closely monitoring the content of most torrents. They will take down child pornography and such things if they notice it, but considering all the accusations of non functioning programs/videos/etc there is no way they could quality control the content.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I imagine at the low end of the scale, people who use torrents or whatever would be caught out by it especially those who fall prey to things like the Pirate Bay which spoofs IPs so even innocent people can be accused of doing something illegal and be cut off eventually having to take their own time and money to get their Internet restored.
Wait, what? The pirate bay spoofs IPs? I hadn't heard anything about that.
Uh, yeah. What the hell are you talking about, DW?
Youd have to find it somewhre on Slyck but the Pirate Bay, as I undersatnd it, relays real Ips along with a few non-real ones leading to accusations against people who don't know what torrenting is.
So, perhaps a slightly off topic question: What would this mean, if anything, for the US and our FCC's attempts to craft Net Neutrality rules to protect end users from being screwed over by our ISPs?
I ask, because I can't imagine this decision is going to exist in a vacuum, so to speak
So, perhaps a slightly off topic question: What would this mean, if anything, for the US and our FCC's attempts to craft Net Neutrality rules to protect end users from being screwed over by our ISPs?
I ask, because I can't imagine this decision is going to exist in a vacuum, so to speak
The telecoms package says nothing whatsoever about what ISPs can/can't do. It's all national level stuff.
The telecoms package is pretty certain to strike down three strike laws. But there's nothing saying ISPs can't otherwise be pressured into adopting it themselves.
Youd have to find it somewhre on Slyck but the Pirate Bay, as I undersatnd it, relays real Ips along with a few non-real ones leading to accusations by people who don't know what The INTERTUBES is.
As I understand this - and I may be thinking about a different issue - TPB basically handed over their logs and then idiots saw a bunch of NAT IPs and assumed them to belong to the guilty parties. I could very easily be wrong here.
Posted this in the British Politics thread but either noone read it or gives a shit but I think this is HUGELY important.
A source close to the British Labour Government has just given me reliable information about the most radical copyright proposal I've ever seen.
Secretary of State Peter Mandelson is planning to introduce changes to the Digital Economy Bill now under debate in Parliament. These changes will give the Secretary of State (Mandelson -- or his successor in the next government) the power to make "secondary legislation" (legislation that is passed without debate) to amend the provisions of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).
What that means is that an unelected official would have the power to do anything without Parliamentary oversight or debate, provided it was done in the name of protecting copyright. Mandelson elaborates on this, giving three reasons for his proposal:
1. The Secretary of State would get the power to create new remedies for online infringements (for example, he could create jail terms for file-sharing, or create a "three-strikes" plan that costs entire families their internet access if any member stands accused of infringement)
2. The Secretary of State would get the power to create procedures to "confer rights" for the purposes of protecting rightsholders from online infringement. (for example, record labels and movie studios can be given investigative and enforcement powers that allow them to compel ISPs, libraries, companies and schools to turn over personal information about Internet users, and to order those companies to disconnect users, remove websites, block URLs, etc)
3. The Secretary of State would get the power to "impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement" (for example, ISPs could be forced to spy on their users, or to have copyright lawyers examine every piece of user-generated content before it goes live; also, copyright "militias" can be formed with the power to police copyright on the web)
Mandelson is also gunning for sites like YouSendIt and other services that allow you to easily transfer large files back and forth privately (I use YouSendIt to send podcasts back and forth to my sound-editor during production). Like Viacom, he's hoping to force them to turn off any feature that allows users to keep their uploads private, since privacy flags can be used to keep infringing files out of sight of copyright enforcers.
This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks. It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition.
This proposal creates the office of Pirate-Finder General, with unlimited power to appoint militias who are above the law, who can pry into every corner of your life, who can disconnect you from your family, job, education and government, who can fine you or put you in jail.
More to follow, I'm sure, once Open Rights Group and other activist organizations get working on this. In the meantime, tell every Briton you know. If we can't stop this, it's beginning of the end for the net in Britain.
The government is planning to award itself powers to change copyright law almost at will, in expectation that new anti-peer-to-peer laws will drive infringement to other services such as Rapidshare and newsgroups.
The measure, which is the most severe contained in the Digital Economy Bill published today, will be interpreted as a major victory for rights holder organisations. It will grant the Business Secretary Lord Mandelson and his successors undprecedented control over civil enforcement of copyright.
The government said it will make the change "so that it, in future, new communications technologies allow creative content to be unlawfully copied in new ways, remedies can be developed and implemented more quickly and flexibly than might otherwise be possible, so that emerging threats can be addressed in a targeted way".
"We recognise there are other kinds of illegal downloading going on and will will need to tackle those as well," said Stephen Timms, the minister responsible for the Bill.
It lays the ground for successors to the enforcement regime proposed to reduce illegal peer-to-peer, also contained in the Bill.
Timms said the powers could not be used to create or modify any criminal offences. Any changes a business secretary might seek to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act using them would be subject to public consultation and debate in both Houses of Parliament, he added.
However, the powers will be exercised by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation, meaning MPs and Lords could not block the government.
As previously announced, ministers will also use statutory instruments to impose "technical measures" - such as bandwidth restrictions, download limits and account suspensions - on ISP customers who persistently infringe copyright via peer-to-peer, which is currently the most common method.
Timms said account suspension would be a last resort, adding: "It may well prove to be the case that if we do use technical measures it may not be that one."
Earlier suggestions by Mandelson that the regime could be in force by summer 2012 were abandoned, with government spokespeople unable to commit to a timetable today.
The regime will work as follows; once the Digital Economy Bill is on the statute books - Timms noted it has cross-party support - ISPs will be obliged by law to notify their customers in writing when it is alleged they have been infringing copyright via peer-to-peer. The letter will be targeted based on lists of IP addresses harvested from BitTorrent swarms by rights holder organisations such as the BPI.
ISPs will also be required to keep records of how many letters are sent to each customer and share that information with the rights holders. If the BPI wants to identify a particular persistent filesharer, it would then apply for a court order and potentially sue in civil court.
Meanwhile Ofcom will be obliged to measure what effect the letters are having on the overall level of filesharing. It could do this via a Deep Packet Inspection-based traffic sampling system - as we revealed yesterday it has held talks with at least one vendor - or, an official suggested, judging it from the data provided by rights holders.
If after an unspecified period, determined by the business secretary, the overall level of infringement is not reduced by 70 per cent, a statutory instrument will be used to impose technical measures. Officials said the details of the technical measures will be tailored to each ISP, depending on the technology available and the nature of peer-to-peer infringement on their network.
Customers who want to challenge an allegation of illegal filesharing will be able to appeal to an Ofcom body in the first instance. If they are unsatisfied they will be able to take their case to a first tier tribunal.
Ofcom will also be responsible for working out the total cost of the process on a per-letter basis. ISPs will then charge rights holders a capped sum for each letter they send, which will effectively divide the costs between the two industries. The details of the split are under discussion, officials said.
ISPs have lobbied hard against the regime, but today Timms claimed the government now enjoys their support. "The importance of what we are doing is pretty widely recognised," he said, adding that BT and Virgin Media backed the regime.
I know Echo linked this in [chat] a few days ago. But he only had the Boingboing article which is - to be blunt - needlessly sensationalist. The Register has a much better article that goes to show just how impractical and downright retarded this plan is.
First a purely theoretical point:
[...]ministers will also use statutory instruments to impose "technical measures" - such as bandwidth restrictions, download limits and account suspensions - on ISP customers who persistently infringe copyright via peer-to-peer, which is currently the most common method.
What kind of punishment is this? If I drive too fast, does the justice department open up my car and limit its speed to 30 miles per hour? No they don't. It is my car and the government does not have the right to tinker with it. All they can do is fine me or take away my license. Those are legit tools by which a government can punish me.
Why do we get fined for speeding? Because we are a danger to those around us when we do it. The government can warn us, punish us or remove us from the road. What they do depends on the severity of the situation.
Illegally downloading files does not bring harm or puts other people in danger. Technically you're not even stealing anything. You just made a copy, the original owner still has the file. That is why it is called a copyright infringement. We have special laws for those. Governments decided that someone made a product and is trying to make a living out of that by selling the product. They decided to protect these people/companies by forbidding us to make illegal copies of their works. The only sensible punishment I can think of is a monetary one. We have to think really hard and say to ourselves "well, I could download this game for free, but risk a 100$ fine...or I could buy it for 60$."
The insanity of record companies, the impracticalities of playing games on your PC, the absolute hate publishers seem to have for the people who are interested in their products and the high prices of home entertainment aside, I have no qualms with copyright infringements getting punished. I have a lot of problems with the way governments and private companies try to bring this punishment.
Secondly a practical point based on this plan:
The regime will work as follows; once the Digital Economy Bill is on the statute books - Timms noted it has cross-party support - ISPs will be obliged by law to notify their customers in writing when it is alleged they have been infringing copyright via peer-to-peer.
Meanwhile Ofcom will be obliged to measure what effect the letters are having on the overall level of filesharing.
If after an unspecified period, determined by the business secretary, the overall level of infringement is not reduced by 70 per cent, a statutory instrument will be used to impose technical measures.
How are they ever going to do all those letters? If you download a CD there are 12 songs on that. Do you receive one letter for that whole CD or 12 letters for every song on it. After all, you can easily buy individual songs, so technically you're making 12 individual copyright infringements. How about illegally streaming episodes of the IT Crowd? In the end you don't have a complete copy of the episode on your PC. Does a letter about illegally downloading Adobe InDesign CS4 ($660.00 on Amazon) weigh for just as much as a letter about illegally downloading Overlord II (bought it for $8.50 on Steam last weekend)?
Basically, how are they ever going to measure all this?
I thought France was bad with a leader in bed with the industries but this is partly an unelected official having a hand in this. If the government owned the lines I'd at least say fair enough and I'm not fan of BT but they are not the governments lines and we don't block road access because roads are used to transport drugs and guns. And as pointed out often, you're cutting off potentially a family, even an entire block of flats in a university style setting for the actions of one person.
And thats before we get to the massive infringement of privacy.
EDIT: Now Spain is more civilised than us.
Spanish citizens will have a legal right from 2011 to be able to buy broadband internet of at least one megabyte per second at a regulated price wherever they live, the country's industry minister said on Tuesday.
The telecoms operator holding the so-called "universal service" contract would have to guarantee it could offer "reasonably" priced broadband throughout Spain, said Miguel Sebastian in a statement sent to media.
Former state monopoly Telefonica (TEF.MC) has always held the universal contract aimed at protecting consumers in poorly populated areas from being cut off in cases where operators would otherwise consider providing the service unprofitable.
The service also subsidises telecoms to disabled users.
The administration here in Sweden is making noises about 100 megabits for everybody before 2015.
I wonder what they expect people to use all that bandwidth for. Checking their email really fast?
I am of the opinion that the Swedish investment in state-owned high-speed IT infrastructure during the 90s is directly responsible for the initial popularity of The Pirate Bay, if not its creation as well.
Do they think this will be different? People will suddenly get phat pipes and they'll want to use them.
Well, thank god we have France. They should go ahead and cuddle with China, the way media and communication politics are done in both countries is becoming strikingly similar.
That comes about 5 months after Germany officially said "Yeah, blocklists? Not such a good idea."
zeeny on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
The blocking and cutting off of information paves the way for oppressive governments.
... I'm not sure if I believe that or just wanted to say it for hyperbole. Regardless, France has been making some terrible decisions as of late. I might have to start boycotting wine, cigarettes, and snootiness.
The blocking and cutting off of information paves the way for oppressive governments.
... I'm not sure if I believe that or just wanted to say it for hyperbole. Regardless, France has been making some terrible decisions as of late. I might have to start boycotting wine, cigarettes, and snootiness.
They are becoming a synonym for a "petty, small minded, bigoted society", which is very sad, because the French people are neither of those things.
Given their current Prime Minister, I dont get why anyone is surprised they'd want to control access to information and cut off those evil home-grown terrorists who download The Princess and the Frog.
The blocking and cutting off of information paves the way for oppressive governments.
... I'm not sure if I believe that or just wanted to say it for hyperbole. Regardless, France has been making some terrible decisions as of late. I might have to start boycotting wine, cigarettes, and snootiness.
They are becoming a synonym for a "petty, small minded, bigoted society", which is very sad, because the French people are neither of those things.
Except that much of France, outside of Paris and the touristy bits, kind of are.
The blocking and cutting off of information paves the way for oppressive governments.
... I'm not sure if I believe that or just wanted to say it for hyperbole. Regardless, France has been making some terrible decisions as of late. I might have to start boycotting wine, cigarettes, and snootiness.
They are becoming a synonym for a "petty, small minded, bigoted society", which is very sad, because the French people are neither of those things.
Except that much of France, outside of Paris and the touristy bits, kind of are.
Not really, no. Rural areas in France face some of the same problems that exist in every western nation, but the people are in no way more intolerant or ignorant than the rest of Europe or NA.
So they want to charge websites for being looked at through their paid ISP service?
No, they want to bill both sides for a data transfer and they are painting a pretty pictures of being "abused victims" by google, because, you know, google isn't paying them for the..uuuuuh.....oh fuck it, it can't be followed rationally. It's a petty money grabbing attempt that could very well work.
Edit: And keep in mind that their data transfer capacity is already oversold to a 10x+ level.
Posts
Ahem, sorry.
I've heard/read plenty of accounts of torrents off of pirate bay containing spyware/malware but as far as the pirate bay itself doing shady things (other than, you know, being a giant repository for torrents) I've never really seen anything.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Youd have to find it somewhre on Slyck but the Pirate Bay, as I undersatnd it, relays real Ips along with a few non-real ones leading to accusations against people who don't know what torrenting is.
I ask, because I can't imagine this decision is going to exist in a vacuum, so to speak
The telecoms package says nothing whatsoever about what ISPs can/can't do. It's all national level stuff.
The telecoms package is pretty certain to strike down three strike laws. But there's nothing saying ISPs can't otherwise be pressured into adopting it themselves.
As I understand this - and I may be thinking about a different issue - TPB basically handed over their logs and then idiots saw a bunch of NAT IPs and assumed them to belong to the guilty parties. I could very easily be wrong here.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/digital_economy_bill/
First a purely theoretical point:
What kind of punishment is this? If I drive too fast, does the justice department open up my car and limit its speed to 30 miles per hour? No they don't. It is my car and the government does not have the right to tinker with it. All they can do is fine me or take away my license. Those are legit tools by which a government can punish me.
Why do we get fined for speeding? Because we are a danger to those around us when we do it. The government can warn us, punish us or remove us from the road. What they do depends on the severity of the situation.
Illegally downloading files does not bring harm or puts other people in danger. Technically you're not even stealing anything. You just made a copy, the original owner still has the file. That is why it is called a copyright infringement. We have special laws for those. Governments decided that someone made a product and is trying to make a living out of that by selling the product. They decided to protect these people/companies by forbidding us to make illegal copies of their works. The only sensible punishment I can think of is a monetary one. We have to think really hard and say to ourselves "well, I could download this game for free, but risk a 100$ fine...or I could buy it for 60$."
The insanity of record companies, the impracticalities of playing games on your PC, the absolute hate publishers seem to have for the people who are interested in their products and the high prices of home entertainment aside, I have no qualms with copyright infringements getting punished. I have a lot of problems with the way governments and private companies try to bring this punishment.
Secondly a practical point based on this plan:
How are they ever going to do all those letters? If you download a CD there are 12 songs on that. Do you receive one letter for that whole CD or 12 letters for every song on it. After all, you can easily buy individual songs, so technically you're making 12 individual copyright infringements. How about illegally streaming episodes of the IT Crowd? In the end you don't have a complete copy of the episode on your PC. Does a letter about illegally downloading Adobe InDesign CS4 ($660.00 on Amazon) weigh for just as much as a letter about illegally downloading Overlord II (bought it for $8.50 on Steam last weekend)?
Basically, how are they ever going to measure all this?
And thats before we get to the massive infringement of privacy.
EDIT: Now Spain is more civilised than us.
The administration here in Sweden is making noises about 100 megabits for everybody before 2015.
I wonder what they expect people to use all that bandwidth for. Checking their email really fast?
I am of the opinion that the Swedish investment in state-owned high-speed IT infrastructure during the 90s is directly responsible for the initial popularity of The Pirate Bay, if not its creation as well.
Do they think this will be different? People will suddenly get phat pipes and they'll want to use them.
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/french-parliament-approves-net-censorship
That comes about 5 months after Germany officially said "Yeah, blocklists? Not such a good idea."
... I'm not sure if I believe that or just wanted to say it for hyperbole. Regardless, France has been making some terrible decisions as of late. I might have to start boycotting wine, cigarettes, and snootiness.
They are becoming a synonym for a "petty, small minded, bigoted society", which is very sad, because the French people are neither of those things.
Except that much of France, outside of Paris and the touristy bits, kind of are.
Not really, no. Rural areas in France face some of the same problems that exist in every western nation, but the people are in no way more intolerant or ignorant than the rest of Europe or NA.
No, they want to bill both sides for a data transfer and they are painting a pretty pictures of being "abused victims" by google, because, you know, google isn't paying them for the..uuuuuh.....oh fuck it, it can't be followed rationally. It's a petty money grabbing attempt that could very well work.
Edit: And keep in mind that their data transfer capacity is already oversold to a 10x+ level.
Nope. FT, DT and Telefonica. The 3 big ones.
As half of Europe to the East of Germany gets its pipes from DT, it's pretty much the whole continent.
Ouch...this is just insanity.
With a delicious European twist!
Here is the text of the Declaration