There seems to be a few people who are misunderstanding how ssl works, and some who think they're safe if they use it. So I thought I'd clear a few things up. SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) is a way to encrypt a connection on the internet between two points. So if you use it, no-one in between the two end points of the connection can read what is being downloaded. They can however tell EVERYTHING about who is downloading something, and who they're getting it from.
The important thing to realise is that at the endpoints, everything is unencrypted. So, taking bittorrent as an example, the way the music industry will catch you is by seeding (or simply joining) a torrent, and then checking to see who else is downloading it. SSL doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Even things like peerguardian won't help all that much. An industry employee could still connect to the tracker to get a list of seeders and downloaders. Just because none of them will allow said employee to connect to them is a bit of a mute point.
The same goes for newsgroups. The server owners know exactly what you've been downloading. And I imagine if faced with a court order, they'd roll over and give up all the records. It's just they haven't started targeting usenet yet (which has always seemed very strange to me, being that giganews et al are about the only people who are making money out of all the piracy).
But as has already been pointed out though, hacked modems make this a totally pointless exercise anyway. Even if you ARE downloading lots of stuff, in court you can just claim your modem has been cloned. AFAIK there's no way for them to prove it hasn't, especially 6 months down the line when it finally makes it to trial. That's more than reasonable doubt (and if the number of members here is anything to go by it's fairly likely
). All Virgin will end up doing is losing customers, and it'll not be the heavy downloaders. More likely it'll be the poor sods who had their modem cloned.
Just my thoughts. Happy leaching...